Like Tree238Likes

China vs Japan on islands now

Reply
Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 ... LastLast
  1. #101

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124

    Unfortunately cost-benefit analysis and politicians do not fit well together unless the benefit is them staying in power. You are assuming rational politicians but then you get an American politician saying that raped women won't get pregnant because they have an automatic close down system to prevent it. If you put you trust in either elected politicians or dictators then you will be disappointed.

    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,847

    Just let China have Fukushima.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using GeoClicks Mobile

    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodraugen:
    Proving what the nationalism of a country "is" and "isn't" certainly isn't easy.
    Yes it is very difficult to gauge nationalistic movement in terms of size and bias.

    Far from Scientific but just looking at the current news trends for both countries with regards to nationalism being reported.

    China https://www.google.com/search?q=nati...w=1920&bih=956 1500 hits

    Japan https://www.google.com/search?q=nati...w=1920&bih=956 188 hits

    If you look at the stories there is a marked difference. Obviously some are irrelevant news stories but it is more the ratio rather than choosing a particular story.

    One country has a free press and the other doesn't
    One country has limited protests and the other didn't
    One country hailed those landing as heroes the other didn't
    One country ....
    Last edited by East_coast; 21-08-2012 at 07:02 AM.
    dear giant likes this.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,593
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Yes it is very difficult to gauge nationalistic movement in terms of size and bias.

    Far from Scientific but just looking at the current news trends for both countries with regards to nationalism being reported.

    China https://www.google.com/search?q=nati...w=1920&bih=956 1500 hits

    Japan https://www.google.com/search?q=nati...w=1920&bih=956 188 hits

    If you look at the stories there is a marked difference. Obviously some are irrelevant news stories but it is more the ratio rather than choosing a particular story.

    One country has a free press and the other doesn't
    One country has limited protests and the other didn't
    One country hailed those landing as heroes the other didn't
    One country ....
    Number of google hits/population size :P

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought:
    Yes, and presumably you've performed this cost-benefit analysis for them?

    The US has bases in both South Korea ad Japan and, soon, Australia too. Co-operation with Vietnam is at an all-time high. Do you see where this is going?

    P.S. - Of course you do - you have all the answers.
    I am simply giving you some cold hard facts about how the world works, that is what the US (and all other major power in the world) think about.

    US have bases in the region, nothing really new. In fact you could argue that this whole "pivot" business is merely the US trying to regain their position and influence in the region to "hedge" against a rising China and reassure its' allies. However, Japan, Australia or Vietnam will not come to the aid of the Philippines over some shoal dispute. They haven't in the past nor will they do so in the future. There is no NATO in the region.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 21-08-2012 at 09:07 AM.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Unfortunately cost-benefit analysis and politicians do not fit well together unless the benefit is them staying in power. You are assuming rational politicians but then you get an American politician saying that raped women won't get pregnant because they have an automatic close down system to prevent it. If you put you trust in either elected politicians or dictators then you will be disappointed.
    You are confusing electoral politics with rational decision-making of nation-states. Politicans say lots of outrageous things to get attention and votes during the campaign season, that does not mean they make up their foreign policy based on nothing other than their whims once elected. (Its' like the promises you hear from the politicans during the campaign season, how much of that was actually kept once they were elected?)

    During the Cold War there were times when the US and the Soviet Union came close to a direct conflict, yet they didn't in the end. Why? Because no matter how much the politicans in each country despised each other, they can make rational decisions on the cost of actual war (nuclear catastrophe). If politicans are as irrational as you implied, there would long ceased to be a USA or Russia, since both would have been destroyed in a nuclear exchange.

    Also, there are numerous government institutions in the US (and China) that formulate and advises their respective leaders on foreign issues. Even if the politicans aren't expert in a particular area, there are experts in those institutions.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 21-08-2012 at 09:32 AM.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    You are confusing electoral politics with rational decision-making of nation-states. Politicans say lots of outrageous things to get attention and votes during the campaign season, that does not mean they make up their foreign policy based on nothing other than their whims once elected. (Its' like the promises you hear from the politicans during the campaign season, how much of that was actually kept once they were elected?)

    During the Cold War there were times when the US and the Soviet Union came close to a direct conflict, yet they didn't in the end. Why? Because no matter how much the politicans in each country despised each other, they can make rational decisions on the cost of actual war (nuclear catastrophe). If politicans are as irrational as you implied, there would long ceased to be a USA or Russia, since both would have been destroyed in a nuclear exchange.

    Also, there are numerous government institutions in the US (and China) that formulate and advises their respective leaders on foreign issues. Even if the politicans aren't expert in a particular area, there are experts in those institutions.
    And I am naive? Explain the Iraq war in the above parallel universe.
    Last edited by hullexile; 21-08-2012 at 10:51 AM.
    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Yes it is very difficult to gauge nationalistic movement in terms of size and bias.
    First of all, I suggest you read your own posts before you read my responses. This is the second time you cloud the discussion by changing the focus, this time by bringing in size (as if that had anything to do with the "evidence").

    You asked me to provide evidence for Japanese nationalism being racist. Since Japanese nationalism isn't really one ideology, that's not as clear-cut a task as stating, for instance, the geographical distance between the countries.

    As for the evidence, look up the affiliation I mentioned. Are you still convinced that "a case of hatred of an entire nation from one side and a dislike of a foreign totalitarian Government on the other"? Because, that is what we were arguing about, not which country has the biggest, or even the most assertive, nationalist movement.

    As for the rest of the post, it comes of as a monograph argument against a scarecrow. I've never said Japan isn't a freer country. As for the google "evidence", I don't understand what it is meant to illustrate. Also, if you think taking a look at the current (English language) news will give you some sort of unclouded insight in the workings of these ideologies, I'll have to respectfully disagree. Chinese nationalism has been an infinitely more interesting topic to cover, since the domination narrative has China as the great threat (and potential superpower) of the future.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    And I am naive? Explain the Iraq war in the above parallel universe.
    You are not naive, you just don't understand the dynamics of international relations. Your inability to distinguish empty political rhetoric and real motive of nation-states mean you are a slow learner. Explain why the US and the USSR didn't go to war then if their leaders are irrational as you claimed.

    Bush did'nt say: "Hey, let's invade Iraq because I felt like it". He believed Iraq did harbor WMD based on (faulty) intelligence. There was also the ideology of regime change as well. But again in both cases there was not an irrational process of decision-making. It was a wrong decision no doubt, but the process to reach there was not irrational. It was faulty decision-making based on incorrect intelligence.

    In addition, Iraq also had significant strategic value to the US, having substantial oil reserves and being next to Iran. Making that state pro-US will help aid US interest in the region. As it turned out, it wasn't the cake walk that the Americans expected, but you cannot claim it was based on irrational decision-making. Poor decision, but not irrational.

    In contrast, China is not Iraq. The Americans know that quite well. I repeat in case you don't get it, the US understands that China is not Iraq, what happened in Iraq cannot be used to analyze China. The US are not about to jump into a conflict with them over some shoal that has no strategic value for them. It's pretty clear for the US.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 21-08-2012 at 11:36 AM.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    You are not naive, you just don't understand the dynamics of international relations. Your inability to distinguish empty political rhetoric and real motive of nation-states mean you are a slow learner. Explain why the US and the USSR didn't go to war then if their leaders are irrational as you claimed.

    Bush did'nt say: "Hey, let's invade Iraq because I felt like it". He believed Iraq did harbor WMD based on (faulty) intelligence. There was also the ideology of regime change as well. But again in both cases there was not an irrational process of decision-making. It was a wrong decision no doubt, but the process to reach there was not irrational. It was faulty decision-making but not irrational, based on incorrect intelligence.

    In addition, Iraq also had significant strategic value to the US, having substantial oil reserves and being next to Iran. Making that state pro-US will help aid US interest in the region. As it turned out, it wasn't the cake walk that the Americans expected, but you cannot claim it was based on irrational decision-making.
    I think I can, and I think many people would agree. It is arguable whether the faulty intelligence was a mistake or deliberately contrived to match the requirements of the politicians. Bush felt he had to do something after 9/11 - the invasion of Iraq was not rational in this light.

Reply
Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 ... LastLast