Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Who doesn't like fruit?

Tadashi wrote:So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

If you think that Japan and China would ever become military allies I think you are gravely mistaken.

AustonT wrote:Who doesn't like fruit?

Commies and terrorists. That's who

I can't believe we got to 5 pages:
Nazis that's who
GODWIN!

I agree. Five pages. Numerous mention of the "Japanese Empire"

I'm with SHuma though on NK "nukes" are aimed at South Korea and not at Japan.

Jihadin wrote:I agree. Five pages. Numerous mention of the "Japanese Empire"

I'm with SHuma though on NK "nukes" are aimed at South Korea and not at Japan.

A country we are also in. So that they can fund education without fear of attack. Also something about being an ally. Yay.

The Japanese Empire phrases remind me of "The South Will Rise Again!"

Melissia wrote:The Japanese Empire phrases remind me of "The South Will Rise Again!"

Me too.

AustonT wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

The Fallen shall rise?

Frazzled wrote:The Fallen shall rise?

If they do, we will need a boomstick!

Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The Fallen shall rise?

This...Is not...Your planet...to rule...The Fallen...Shall rise...AGAAAAAAIINNN!!!!!


On topic again, New Japanese Empire? Really?

Besides, Japan took over a long time ago, they were just polite about it.

Squigsquasher wrote:


On topic again, New Japanese Empire? Really?

Besides, Japan took over a long time ago, they were just polite about it.

Its just good business...

And don't leave...as long as you're there, we can make money at your expense.

Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Squigsquasher wrote:Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.

1st point... well, it's pointless. Iraq has a government nothing like ours. Nor does Afghanistan. I'm talking now, not pre-invasion. If we were to invade every country that did not have a government like ours, you'd be speaking American English instead of the Queen's English by now.

2nd Point, We're in Japan and Germany for multiple reasons. The governments want us there, we provide a huge amount of money for their economies. Secondly, our ability to forward deploy from those locations are key. They provide our worldwide capabilities that let us respond to a crisis within hours to days as is necessary. How do you think the majority of British assets made it to Iraq and Afghanistan? I can gaurantee you that our military, and our bases in Europe and the Middle East played a large roll. I'm not just talking about wartime scenarios either though. When the tsunami struck Indonesia some years back it was our forces baesd in Japan that were providing immediate relief. How many more would have died without our ability to provide assistance as quickly as we did?

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world. At the same time they have 3 strategic opponents literally in their back yard, two of whom are juggernaughts. Our forces in Japan provide an extra umbrella of safety to them. With US bases largely intermingled with Japanese forces means that it would be impossible to strike one without the other. And you don't swing at us if your not willing to face the strongest military machine in the world, by extension you don't swing at our friends.

The US military is more then a killing machine. That is our primary job, for sure, and we are damn good at it. No agency in the world though also has the humanitarian capacity that the US military has. We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind, and while yes we can launch a B-2 from Missouri, have it drop a bomb in Tehran, and then land back home again, it's not quite that easy to do with every thing else that is required of us.

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

djones520 wrote:

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world.

Its more of a shield rather than a halberd, so while we can defend ourselves adequately, we can't really strike back.

Which is also why we are there. I worked hand in hand with the JASDF for 4.5 years, I'm well aware of their capabilities. Their military is an excellent defensive machine. Plenty strong enough to provide time for their bigger friends to bring their bigger guns to the party.

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

.

'Empire' has a lot of bad connotations these days. Probably the reason why I've never heard a single Japanese person other than yourself call it one. 'Empire', is a Western phrase and affectation that usually involves the subjugation and colonisation of others, not the nicest of things, or indeed memories of Japan to be associated with.

Just Japan, Nippon or plain old simple Nihon do for most people. I mean, I could type out, 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain' every time I referred to the old place, but it looks a little silly.

djones520 wrote:Which is also why we are there. I worked hand in hand with the JASDF for 4.5 years, I'm well aware of their capabilities. Their military is an excellent defensive machine. Plenty strong enough to provide time for their bigger friends to bring their bigger guns to the party.

Well nationalists don't like the idea, and some people consider the US presence as just adding more targets in Japan for China and North Korea.

I too am leaning towards an isolationist mentality. Not saying we should in no wise intervene but i think Iray and Afganistan have taught us that boots on the ground and police force to "democratize" the world is a farce.

I would advocate we keep the carriers and the drones. Increase the use of special forces. Increase our airlift capability. In conjunction with that reduce the number of "heavy" divisions. I think the age of being prepared to fight two simultaneous wars is outdated and too costly.

The world's threats seem to be organizations rather than nations. A carrier strike force should be deterrent enough for most nations. Meanwhile the threat of drone retaliation or special forces targeted attacks should be sufficient for destabilizing any organisation that wants to hit the US.

Minus the Manifest Destiny of taking the west from Mexico and Native Americans, the average US citizen has been isolationist.

Afghanistan - The post 9/11 world - this was a strike on the Taliban who was harboring the organisation that attacked the US.
Iraq II - The lie of WMD. It seemed justified.
Iraq I - They took over Kuwait and seemed to be threatening Saudi Arabia. Hello. Threaten ours and the world's oil supply.
Grenada/Panama - The Monroe doctrine at work - at least in expanded form.
Vietnam - The height of the Cold War - the Dominoe effect was the operating doctrine. Vietnam is not a big thing but Malasia,Thailand, the Phillipines... cannot be risked.
Cuba - Sorry nukes planted off the coast of the US was a major threat.
Korea - The beginning of the Cold War. North Korea attacked and would have fallen. (Remember this is 2 years after Nationalist China became Communist.)
WW II - We were happy in a semi-belligerent state being the arsenal for Democracy until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
WW I - Submarines were new and while Britain "peacefully" maintained a blockade on Germany, the unrestricted submarine warfare and blundering German diplomacy finally became too much.
The Spanish-American War - The sinking of the Maine - while it may have been trumped up - got the American people enraged.

The Civil War - A fight for states rights versus the sovereighty of the nation all wrapped up in slavery...
The War of 1812 - British taking American sailors and impressing them into service. Sorry too much to handle.
The Revolutionary War - The ham-handed British rule became too mush to swallow. Some reluctantly some enthusiastically fought for freedom.

Now the reasoning may be somewhat simple but as a baseline for the average citizen, they were the things that made going to war seem like a good thing. I am not saying that the press or the government or Wall Street did not - in some cases- raise the cause to a threat level but the US as a citizenry, have not nationalistically aggressively declared war excepting the ongoing assimilation of the West.

And in that case, I will state that the European forebears didn't set an exemplar example for the US. As I recall, Spanish conquest of lands. German and French imperialism, British economic imperialism, Japanese and German aggression, Russian imperialism, Soviet expansion have all played a role in or directly resulted in US aquisition of land.

Again as I have said Mea Culpa on the west but the American people -as opposed to the government/wall street/etc. - have never had an aggressive nationalistic expansion or interventionist leaning.

It is that sort of isolationism that I wish we would return to. As a matter of fact, the best thing we could do to make this happen is push for an alternate method of powering our vehicles and industry. Then we could care less about what happens in the Middle East.

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

.

'Empire' has a lot of bad connotations these days. Probably the reason why I've never heard a single Japanese person other than yourself call it one. 'Empire', is a Western phrase and affectation that usually involves the subjugation and colonisation of others, not the nicest of things, or indeed memories of Japan to be associated with.

Just Japan, Nippon or plain old simple Nihon do for most people. I mean, I could type out, 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain' every time I referred to the old place, but it looks a little silly.

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Tadashi wrote:

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Well, Dakka is a benign dictatorship under the well polished heel of yakface, not quite free.

Other than that minor detail, go nuts I guess. Like I said, it just sounds a little silly is all. People puffing up with nationalistic fervour generally do. That may be the British sensibilities coming out though.

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Well, Dakka is a benign dictatorship under the well polished heel of yakface, not quite free.

Lol...

Other than that minor detail, go nuts I guess. Like I said, it just sounds a little silly is all. People puffing up with nationalistic fervour generally do. That may be the British sensibilities coming out though.

Your nationalist pride does show when your royals make an appearance, or at least that's how it looks to me.

Japanese nationalism is relatively benign these days, though its still there - just look at the number of visitors to Yasukuni Shrine (I myself went there a few years ago), the number of people who go and see the Emperor during his annual public appearance at his birthday, and the recent rise to power of neo-nationalist politicians in the Parliament. TBH, IIRC, extreme nationalism (ala WWII) isn't that common, but nationalism to the point we become not a dependent of America and more of an ally seems to be growing in strength, no thanks to those frakheads on the mainland.

if America backs out of everything militarily , then someone will step in to replace them. most likely us in an attempt to regain our former glory, Russia or china. . either that or we ( the British) will follow suit and back out as well, which wouldn't really be such a bad thing since we are slowly fixing our economy and sorting ourselves out.


Nom

djones520 wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.

1st point... well, it's pointless. Iraq has a government nothing like ours. Nor does Afghanistan. I'm talking now, not pre-invasion. If we were to invade every country that did not have a government like ours, you'd be speaking American English instead of the Queen's English by now.

2nd Point, We're in Japan and Germany for multiple reasons. The governments want us there, we provide a huge amount of money for their economies. Secondly, our ability to forward deploy from those locations are key. They provide our worldwide capabilities that let us respond to a crisis within hours to days as is necessary. How do you think the majority of British assets made it to Iraq and Afghanistan? I can gaurantee you that our military, and our bases in Europe and the Middle East played a large roll. I'm not just talking about wartime scenarios either though. When the tsunami struck Indonesia some years back it was our forces baesd in Japan that were providing immediate relief. How many more would have died without our ability to provide assistance as quickly as we did?

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world. At the same time they have 3 strategic opponents literally in their back yard, two of whom are juggernaughts. Our forces in Japan provide an extra umbrella of safety to them. With US bases largely intermingled with Japanese forces means that it would be impossible to strike one without the other. And you don't swing at us if your not willing to face the strongest military machine in the world, by extension you don't swing at our friends.

The US military is more then a killing machine. That is our primary job, for sure, and we are damn good at it. No agency in the world though also has the humanitarian capacity that the US military has. We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind, and while yes we can launch a B-2 from Missouri, have it drop a bomb in Tehran, and then land back home again, it's not quite that easy to do with every thing else that is required of us.

The Japanese bases I can kind of understand (kind of) but the German ones? Who is going to suddenly declare war on Germany? Belgium?

Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping. The Bundeswehr is more then capable of fighting on it's own and we have absolutely no need to A. hold it's hand or B. get caught up in the next European war if we can avoid it.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping. The Bundeswehr is more then capable of fighting on it's own and we have absolutely no need to A. hold it's hand or B. get caught up in the next European war if we can avoid it.

Technically so can the Japanese Army and Navy...we'll still be your allies, so losing the bases there aren't really that bad.

djones520 wrote: We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind...

Eh, we use our military for the good of the United States. We didn't provide humanitarian aid to the tsunami victims out of good will, we provided it in order to develop political clout. The US has a long, and storied history of using humanitarian aid as a political tool, much like every other country that exists.

Now, that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing (it also doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing*), but it does mean that helping people is usually not the driving force behind action.



*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping.

NSA Naples is also very useful.

 dogma wrote:
*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.

But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

 Melissia wrote:

 dogma wrote:
*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.

But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

Plus there are many resources that the US has that other countries don't have...and they're worthless to us.

 Melissia wrote:
But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

Actually, many of them are people from the countries receiving humanitarian aid, and people working in the aid industry. And they do offer a reasonable alternative: stop giving humanitarian aid.

The argument is basically two-fold. First, humanitarian aid may serve to prolong wars by giving fighters a safe haven to retreat to. Second, humanitarian aid may serve to prop up dictatorships by ameliorating their poor policy choices.

I'll grant you that what I view as an interesting argument is often hijacked by libertarians and conservatives looking to either bolster free market rhetoric, or play on the notion of government waste through populism, but its still something to consider.