2009-10-22, 11:32 | Link #4441 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
^^In this argument over the military base in Okinawa, neither side has the upper hand, IMHO. Japan still needs the U.S. for support given its constitutional inability to act on the external military front. The U.S. needs Japan's support in the Asia-Pacific region as well as in purchasing debt. An agreement made by the previous government, given that the Okinawa people do not want the base there, will be hard to follow - certainly a review is in order.
Key U.S. senators may rebuff Obama on health care Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-22, 14:27 | Link #4443 | ||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2009-10-22, 16:31 | Link #4445 | |
Lurker
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York City
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-22, 18:07 | Link #4447 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
US urging China, Japan to buy less oil from Iran
What's this? The United States are requesting nations to not buy cheap oil and instead buy more expensive ones!? Are they going to pay for the extra expenses? Otherwise, there shouldn't be a nation stupid enough to not purchase cheap oil from Iran. ---- Quote:
More importantly, would China act aggressive against another East Asian nation after agreeing to the plan of building an "East Asian Community" which is sort of like a second European Union? If China does something like that, this plan will obviously deem to be a failure. However, I definitely do not believe that China will turn suddenly aggressive over the relocation of an American military facility over of Okinawa as that is quite irrelevant. Quote:
Quote:
Of course, the government would not do something so reckless as that it would appear as though the mutual trust and strong bilateral ties will instantly be broken. Instead, some sort of modifications to the current plan will probably occur in which the United States are reluctant to accept. I am not sure how this will work out in the end but things certainly don't look very good now... Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2009-10-22 at 18:37. |
|||
2009-10-22, 21:42 | Link #4448 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
City attorney Carmen Trutanich: L.A. 'wasted a lot of dough' on Michael Jackson memorial.
|
2009-10-22, 22:10 | Link #4449 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-10-22, 22:38 | Link #4451 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
The last isn't, again, likely to happen as the governments will scream of "interference" in their affairs. OTOH, if they are asking for aid, then some "interference" is already happening. Data: Most jobs created by [U.S.] state I'm a bit confused by the latest information. So, if I'm reading this correctly, Colorado (the state that created the most number of jobs) created 4710.05 (listed in the "States Breakdown" section) jobs after spending US$583,269,816 on contracts, and the least (Rhode Island) created 5.93 from US$6,142,915 in contracts? Either I'm seriously misunderstanding the inputs/outputs, or something is seriously wrong (and wasteful) in the process.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-22, 23:38 | Link #4452 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Hulu to charge fees for access
(and possible takeover by NewsCorp?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33438370...h_and_gadgets/ |
2009-10-23, 00:24 | Link #4453 | ||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Further China's military build up has been about gaining air supremacy over the straight and Taiwan itself and the ability to invade or blockade Taiwan. I'm not saying China is eager for a war there, but if one does come, they naturally want to make sure they can win and have been building their forces to that end. The US moving an airbase closer to Taiwan could be interpreted by China as an indication of a shift in the US from an official "One China" policy and a sign of increased US commitment to defend Taiwan, increasing tensions. Moving a major military base like that has a lot of implications in regards to a nation's foriegn policy. Japan of all nations should understand that, given that the US repositioning of it's pacific fleet from San Franciscio to Pearl Harbor was one of the things that factored into the decision to go to war. Moving a major fleet base closer to Japan was seen as an act of aggression against Japan then. Moving a major airbase closer to Taiwan could be seen as an act of aggression against China today. Of course the base would still be in Okinawa prefecture then, just not on the island of Okinawa itself. Moving the base to say South Korea will be interpreted by North Korea as an act of aggression. Then again North Korea would see increasing food aid as an act of aggression, so that's not saying much. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
2009-10-23, 06:20 | Link #4456 |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Beautiful pictures from the Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...words=&x=0&y=0
__________________
|
2009-10-23, 11:54 | Link #4457 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
U.S. prods Japan anew on Futemma, Okada favors transfer to Kadena
Quote:
---- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
2009-10-23, 12:32 | Link #4458 |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
i heard that the original judge was only going to sent polanski back to serve out the reminder of his 90 day sentence then have him deported. Now instead spending another 45 days in jail he face the 45day plus whatever the government is going to tack on for unlawful flight.
__________________
|
2009-10-23, 22:04 | Link #4460 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
The basing of foreign troops on native soil is always a sensitive subject, IMHO, and I think that recently, there had been at least a couple of U.S. bases in Central Asia being forced to close when the countries' leaders said no. The U.S. also still needs help and support for Afghanistan as well, which hasn't been moving in the "Great!" direction. Driving away Japan (a known ally in the region) is not a good way to maintain a global presence. OTOH, if the U.S. is going to isolate itself again (think post-WWI), this wouldn't be a problem. A move out of Japan would likely cause South Koreans to want U.S. troops out as well, but that is a smaller problem given the fact North Korea isn't the best neighbor to have. For North Korea, having U.S. troops based on Japan has not stopped it from testing its missiles or selling weapons (excl. the ship boarding bit being allowed now). Anti-missiles use is better placed, IMHO, in South Korea where it is easier to track, on ships where they can be easily moved, or in places like Alaska, Guam, Hawaii or the West Coast when the targets are better known. Having orbital weapons platforms is better, but not too likely to happen. As for China, I don't see how much having U.S. bases in Japan that will stop it from being aggressive to countries like Russia, Vietnam or India if it wants to. Taiwan is not a huge deal, esp. if China is willing to spend the missiles to allow its marines to land onshore; Taiwan is looked more as a province that has wandered away as well, IMHO; a peaceful reunion is more preferred given they are still seen as being "one of us". South Korea... Kind of hard to say. From day-to-day fiction writings, the tone tends to be derogatory, and there doesn't seem to be much from the central government or its propaganda organs. On the "what does South Korea has to offer" front, there doesn't look to be much that it cannot get by corporate theft or purchases elsewhere? Physical threats to the Chinese mainland can be placed elsewhere, esp. with enough fuel available; having bases close by just means you need less, but then you need to deal with faster counterattacks. On the plus side for the U.S., sales of weapons like the PAC-3 should go up, esp. when you include training, weapon reloads and maintenance contracts in the bill. A plus for the U.S. arms industry. Quote:
A move out of Japan by the U.S. could mean a decrease in military spending by China, which the U.S. would like to see; OTOH, continued spending in that case could mean China has bad intentions elsewhere (like Russia and India). Looking like you are sacrificing Taiwan in this case, esp. if you convince the country that you are still helping it, could be worth the gamble. I'm also not sure how much the U.S. citizens actually care these days about the treaty to protect Taiwan... Quote:
__________________
Last edited by LynnieS; 2009-10-23 at 22:17. |
|||
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|