Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
AvidFan

Here We Go. East/west Rift Starts With...

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...it-with-US.html

Incoming Tokyo government threatens split with US A split is emerging between the United States and Japan over the new Tokyo government's anti-globalisation rhetoric and its threats to end a refueling agreement for US ships in support of the war in Afghanistan.

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo

Published: 4:38PM BST 11 Sep 2009

Yukio Hatoyama blamed the US for the ills of capitalism Photo: AP Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, has caused alarm in Washington after publishing an article blaming the US for the ills of capitalism, the global economy and "the destruction of human dignity".

He also intends to examine an agreement that permits US warships to dock at Japanese ports, in violation of the nation's non-nuclear principles. Mr Hatoyama says he will also look again at the $6 billion cost faced by Japan to transfer thousands of US troops from their base in Okinawa to the Pacific island of Guam amid a wide-ranging review of the American military presence on Japanese soil.

His election campaign promised a more "independent" foreign policy from Washington and closer relations with Asian neighbours, including China. On Thursday, he repeated his intention to defy the US and end the Maritime Self-Defence Force's resupply mission in the Indian Ocean.

Mr Hatoyama will be sworn in on Wednesday after an historic victory that ended decades of near unbroken rule by the Liberal Democratic Party. He will have his first meeting with Barack Obama, the US president, at the United Nations on Sep 22.

The Pentagon reminded Japan of the expectations it faced as a "great power and one of the world's wealthiest countries". Geoff Morrell, a spokesman, said: "There is an international responsibility, we believe, for everyone to do their share, as best they can, to contribute to this effort to bring about a more peaceful and secure Afghanistan."

The Defence Department would not "prejudge" Japan's new political leadership, he added.

"We think that when the responsibility of governing comes about that people will appreciate, as we have every reason to believe they do, the importance of this alliance and the importance of working together on these [security] agreements," he said.

Makoto Watanabe, a professor of media and communication at Hokkaido Bunkyo University, said: "The US has been critical of new trends in Japan, but we are not a colony of Washington and we should be able to say what we want.

"The Japan-US relationship will remain our most important bilateral link, but while under previous governments Japan had become a yes-man to the US, this suggests to me that healthy change is taking place."

With the US underwater, it's role as the world's police force is over and all bets for a peaceful "fourth turning" are off. Strange how things play out. Maybe things will kick off in the East and China will have to afford a war as the major peacekeeping force, with the Americans effectively being kicked out of Japan.

Edited by AvidFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is really unbelievable.

did some cave men in afghanistan really bring the USA to its knees so quickly? shocking! If anyone had predicted this with a straight face 10 years ago they would have been sectioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is really unbelievable.

did some cave men in afghanistan really bring the USA to its knees so quickly? shocking! If anyone had predicted this with a straight face 10 years ago they would have been sectioned.

this is really unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not exactly ten years, but I've had this (see below) in my for at least a couple as I thought it most accurately portrayed the enormity and potential failout form following the wrong route.

"Asians make things and sell them to Americans, who borrow money from their suppliers (on the inflated value of their houses) in order to continue living beyond their means. Asians take their profits and either relend them to Americans...or use them to buy more productive capacity, in America and elsewhere.

For those who wonder where this trend will lead, we offer a guess: The average American will be left with a shoeshine kit and instructions on how to say 'please' and 'thank you' in Chinese...

Afghanistan/War on terror a factor, but the behaviour of the financial controllers and their banking buddies being the prime cause. Support for the status quo in terms of trade, currencies, capitalism/globalism (as it stands) and war is dwindling rapidly at a country level now. Even China is lining up alternative currency strategies.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting! There have been a few commentators saying that when Japan changes focus, it changes in a rather radical way.

Is this a sign of things to come? Will other countries start questioning the collective wisdom (group think?) we currently hold dear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the markets start to demand a higher government bond yield, it could tip the country into a debt spiral sooner than the West. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but the adjustments they will have to make to reign in their spending will mean a much smaller economy and more deflation.

Of course this goes for the West too, but in the case of Japan it makes perfect sense to stop chasing the expanding US model and fit their costs around an expanding Chinese one instead. Falling prices and wages in Japan, still with the world's second highest standard of living, fits perfectly as a luxury goods manufacturer for China's new well-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Falling prices and wages in Japan, still with the world's second highest standard of living, fits perfectly as a luxury goods manufacturer for China's new well-off.

Well spotted sir. That's what the company I work for over here have been doing since 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The West" is a term that was dug up about 2 years ago, it having being buried sometime in the mid 90s in a blizzard of hyperpower rhetoric. This change in Japanese policy is not a disagreement between "the West" and Japan, it is a disagreement between the US and Japan. So far as the interests of European countries are concerned who make up rather a lot of the so called West it really doesn't matter. So far as the US is concerned it is 70 years after WW2 now maybe it is time for US troops who arrived then, and never left, to pull out, ditto with Europe.

Note:

As is almost inevitable in this kind of thread some of the posters will be professional propogandists working for one of many state sponsored propoganda orginisations. See if you can spot who's who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, has caused alarm in Washington after publishing an article blaming the US for the ills of capitalism, the global economy and "the destruction of human dignity".

He's basically right though, isn't he?

I think the Merkans are going to spend the next few years being stunned at how unpopular they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is really unbelievable.

did some cave men in afghanistan really bring the USA to its knees so quickly? shocking! If anyone had predicted this with a straight face 10 years ago they would have been sectioned.

:rolleyes:

They kicked the crap out of The British Empire.

They kicked the crap out of the Soviets.

And the French.

The only really 'successful' invasion of Afghanistan was in 1219 when Genghis Khan killed everyone and burnt every city to the ground.

So it was a fairly obvious outcome...

PS A bunch of jungle dwelling peasants also kicked the crap out of the USA, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that id disagree with much here, but didnt the Japanese have the exact same runaway capitalism, and subsequent big government economic facism/corporatism from 1989 onwards? Stinks a bit of pot, kettle black etc.

The only difference is when you destroy 'human dignity' in Japan they throw themselves of the nearest bridge. No such luck with our Boveys/Ashford Landlords/Applegarth etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes:

They kicked the crap out of The British Empire.

They kicked the crap out of the Soviets.

And the French.

The only really 'successful' invasion of Afghanistan was in 1219 when Genghis Khan killed everyone and burnt every city to the ground.

So it was a fairly obvious outcome...

PS A bunch of jungle dwelling peasants also kicked the crap out of the USA, remember?

The US can win the war in Afganistan. But history tells us it can't win it in a way that is politically acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US can win the war in Afganistan. But history tells us it can't win it in a way that is politically acceptable.

Agreed. We could flatten Afghanistan tomorrow if we so choose, but the problem is we are too soft to really do it. It was the same problem the yanks had in Vietnam and Korea.

Why do we keep asking our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that id disagree with much here, but didnt the Japanese have the exact same runaway capitalism, and subsequent big government economic facism/corporatism from 1989 onwards? Stinks a bit of pot, kettle black etc.

The only difference is when you destroy 'human dignity' in Japan they throw themselves of the nearest bridge. No such luck with our Boveys/Ashford Landlords/Applegarth etc.

Zirp, carry trade pushed excess money into the rest of the world propping their exports. Like you say hardly in any position to talk. But the usefulness of that little con trick is gone and the same goes for China recycling their dollars to both spike the competition by inflating their bubble and also providing for ready exports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes:

They kicked the crap out of The British Empire.

They kicked the crap out of the Soviets.

And the French.

The only really 'successful' invasion of Afghanistan was in 1219 when Genghis Khan killed everyone and burnt every city to the ground.

So it was a fairly obvious outcome...

PS A bunch of jungle dwelling peasants also kicked the crap out of the USA, remember?

but the US came out stronger from Vietnam, and communism's spread to SEA was blunted... even the soviet union collapsed due to internal economic malaise rather than their war in afghanistan. But today's US military is a massive resource hog, with huge swathes of "military services" outsourced to halliburton and co (services) and Xe (facilities protection and convoy defence). all of which means the govt had to raise HUGE amounts of money via T-Bills in the past 9 years... and now its time to pay the piper. The DoD spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined! that means its more than ripe for economic implosion.

Seems to be a similar situation to Britain and the Rothschilds during the Napoleonic wars... Is the result of the "war on terraTM" US going to be in the pocket of the BoJ + Chinese + Temasek + arab SWFs? just like Britain in the post Napoleonic wars (in rothschilds pockets)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. We could flatten Afghanistan tomorrow if we so choose, but the problem is we are too soft to really do it. It was the same problem the yanks had in Vietnam and Korea.

Why do we keep asking our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? :angry:

the combination of rugged terrain, lots of mountains and a very very low population density means that even with the use of nuclear bombs the US would only be able to destroy the larger "towns" like kabul, kandahar, mazar which have maybe 20% of the population (the more docile 20% that is). the roughneck 80% probably can't be destroyed without dropping nukes into every valley and mountain top village (and there should be thousands of these)... needless to say, the US will pretty much exhaust its Nuke stockpile on afghanistan before declaring that they've managed to fully "neutralise" them... then comes the tricky bit of having to kill the millions of afghan refugees who are already outside afghanistan in pakistan, iran, uzbekistan and europe/US etc... who (understandably) will be up for a bit of revenge... and from what you can see above, it'll be easier for them to "take out" 5-6 of the largest US cities and kill over a 80 million... (afghans are less than 30M by comparison).

as you can see scorched earth is easy when the opponents haven't got huge mountains between each village that can blunt even Mt sized nukes.

Edited by hayder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not at war with Afghanistan; we are at war with a small group of people who happen to live there.

If Al Queda were operating out of Wales we wouldn't be at war with Wales, would we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not at war with Afghanistan; we are at war with a small group of people who happen to live there.

If Al Queda were operating out of Wales we wouldn't be at war with Wales, would we?

about time somebody declared war on wales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. We could flatten Afghanistan tomorrow if we so choose, but the problem is we are too soft to really do it. It was the same problem the yanks had in Vietnam and Korea.

Why do we keep asking our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? :angry:

Oh yeah and what gives us the right to flatten any country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the combination of rugged terrain, lots of mountains and a very very low population density means that even with the use of nuclear bombs the US would only be able to destroy the larger "towns" like kabul, kandahar, mazar which have maybe 20% of the population (the more docile 20% that is). the roughneck 80% probably can't be destroyed without dropping nukes into every valley and mountain top village (and there should be thousands of these)... needless to say, the US will pretty much exhaust its Nuke stockpile on afghanistan before declaring that they've managed to fully "neutralise" them... then comes the tricky bit of having to kill the millions of afghan refugees who are already outside afghanistan in pakistan, iran, uzbekistan and europe/US etc... who (understandably) will be up for a bit of revenge... and from what you can see above, it'll be easier for them to "take out" 5-6 of the largest US cities and kill over a 80 million... (afghans are less than 30M by comparison).

as you can see scorched earth is easy when the opponents haven't got huge mountains between each village that can blunt even Mt sized nukes.

What utter tripe. For starters, nuclear bombs explode in the air....I could go on.

Edited by Alan B'Stard MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea of nuking Afgaistan as the Final Solution to the Afgani question (die Endlösung der Afghanischenfrage) is crazy. If this were ever to happen then you would soon find that that was now the least of your problems. I'd say you were no better than Nazis, but I guess you know that already.

Edited by Della

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea of nuking Afgaistan as the Final Solution to the Afgani question is crazy. If this were ever to happen then you would soon find that that was now the least of your problems. I'd say you were no better than Nazis, but I guess you know that already.

The strange thing is that i am in my mid fourties and i have been travelling to at least 20 countries over the years and have met large amounts of people in this country and abroad, and have never come across such "evil people" as you meet on internet forums, i really think a number of internet posters are run by the secret services of countries, pushing the agenda of hatred against who is the enemy of the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.