Why not kick out Germany from the EU and NATO? They terrorized Europe. Is that your argument?
Japan & South Korea as far as I can tell appreciate the US military umbrella that protects them in today's world.
Cold War against China?
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Japan & South Korea as far as I can tell appreciate the US military umbrella that protects them in today's world.
let’s see. how does the death toll of the US bombing in japan, korea, compare to the conflict between these nations?
i don't know, and don't see how a number comparison is enough to understand the relationship between three countries with a centuries-long history, which includes multiple wars, colonialism, and massacres.
Stop feeding the troll folks. Every post exchanged will drop your IQ.
you don’t need a number. I just want to know your argument or anyone else’s in this thread for that matter about how aligning with the US is the solution. or how the US is the good guy in this context.
There is no "solution" or "good guy" and I don't need to give an argument. It's simply a fact that the ROK and Japan since WW2 have been aligned to the US.
Even China and the US have been on the same side of many conflicts since the Sino-Soviet split till relatively recently.
They jointly supported the Khmer Rouge from 1978-1993!! Inspiring!!! And they both funded the Mujahideen after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan! Awww. If only we could return to those glory days of US-China cooperation.
To recap - someone quoted a Chinese proposal to have a China-Japan-Korea alliance. You said it makes sense because of US bombing. I said the current state of affairs makes as much sense given their history.
you don’t need to give an argument but still typed all of this out? i never said it makes sense. I pointed out that the US has bombed both these countries into oblivion which is a fact. since most of this thread is about how the US is on the right side of history, I wanted to know how that aligns with their history of bombing japan and korea. simple as.
I don't think the US is on the right side of history on most things, including its stance towards China.
But I don't like it when other countries foreign policy is reduced to their history/stance towards the US/"West" alone. We all have other parts of our history too.
yeah, fully agree with the first part. the second part, not so much. but that’s an entirely different conversation altogether.
Last edited:
What is there to disagree about with the second part? It's incredibly arrogant and western centric to boil all decisions that countries make down to their relationships with the West/ USA.
Just as some on this thread struggle to visualise a world where people don't see the west/ USA as the 'good guy', you similarly struggle to comprehend a world view that some may have where the USA/West may be seen as the lesser of evils.
there are countless reasons. but how about their foreign policy in the middle east? what values is the US exactly upholding by selling them weapons and not holding them accountable for any of the countless atrocities they have committed?
just to be clear, when you mean lesser of two evils, you mean the US being the lesser evil compared to china, yeah?
it is also equally arrogant and stupid to not want to recognize any of the faults of tHe wEsT in the name of the “lesser of two evils” or any other nonsensical ideas.
Why on earth would the Japanese care about the foreign policy of the USA in the middle East, when their foreign policy is almost exclusively focused on East Asia?
Yes, in the Japanese context, the USA may the 'lesser of two evils' compared to China. For an Iraqi or Iranian, they most certainly are not.
How is that so difficult to comprehend?
It really isn't. You see every single thing with a western lens on. The Japanese and south Koreans are more concerned with what's currently going on in their back yard compared to the USA's maniacal wars in the middle East.
Who isn't recognising any faults of ' the West' when discussing this idea? The whole Concept of lesser of two evils is literally in the name.....both groups are......evil?
@africanspur you need to chill. i think we both are on the same page. what is getting misunderstood is that you think I am finding fault with japan. I am not. I was merely pointing out that the US has also bombed both of these countries into oblivion.
Why did you feel the need to point it out?
because it is something that did happen. hope that helps.
I have lost brain cells reading these posts.
so according to your low iq curiosity, that is enough justification to drop an atom bomb? is that right?
For my own curiosity, did you know Japan attacked the US first?
I figured I would add some context to your "US bombing Japan" narrative.
let me know when you have an answer to my question. I’ll wait.
Your question betrays yourself. The US didn't drop an atom bomb because of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was 1941.
I don't know the specifics of US decision-making for the atom bomb in 1945 but there was already a war raging for several years by 1945. Fortunately, no invasion of all Japanese mainland happened.
As for the morality around the atom bomb, I don't quite know what to think of it. I would have hoped there'd be a different way to make Japan stop fighting.
Nevertheless, your "US bombing Japan" narrative deserved some context.
Japanese killed 25 million Chinese during the Maoist/Republic of China civil war encroachment (overlapped with WW2).
If looking at any given nation to diagnose war, we are looking in wrong directions. It is a disease which has been long-lasting. The American bombing of Indo-China killed many millions. Ten at least if we take Cambodia and Loas and the Khymer Rouge, too, apportion blame however one sees fit, rather misses the point. The military industrial complex, of the world, throughout history, is such that "this nation" to "that nation" is largely used a debating tool for ideologues, not saying here, who wish to win an argument thinking that one nation's crimes can be put upon trial and condemned with respect to alliegance, declared, to another nation.
You see it today and I don't even mean Russia/Ukraine. Everywhere.
ok but who cares? my posts in this thread were pretty evident in terms of which bombing I was referring to. since you’re so kind as to do me this favor of context. let me also help solve your moral ambiguities. what the US did was not only wrong but also unnecessary.
Only two arguments ever exist: one, the Americans did it as statement against Soviets; two, the Americans did it to prevent losses of troops as they faced losses in thousands, many, during the island campaigns. I'd say put the two together and you have the answer. More than one meaning; the war office, as it was called then, would have understood it as such with respect to current and post-war landscape (the first insane cold war which some morons, whatever nationality, seem happy to replicate).
The first could be seen as "saving lives" (Japan was entirely willing to concede at that point). The second was overkill, no malicious pun intended: demonstration of capacity/arsenal. For Soviet Consumption, generally. Remember the Soviet movement toward Japan from the East and also European movement wherein the US and USSR had divided the post-War world between them (UK squeezed out).
"Who cares"?
I did my part. Readers in this thread will see that there is more to the story than "US bad". Must be killing you that the US isn't at all times perceived to be the bad guy.
yeah, sorry I don’t give a shit. you don’t have to be a genius to figure out which war or bombing I was talking about."Who cares"?
I did my part. Readers in this thread will see that there is more to the story than "US bad". Must be killing you that the US isn't at all times perceived to be the bad guy.
Think we’re all pretty well informed and understand the devastating consequences of US imperialism in East and Southeast Asia over the last century. The question Chinese authorities seeking to offer an alternative to the established American security umbrella need to honestly consider is why much of the region continues to regard this alternative with, at the very least, a large measure of skepticism, despite the destructive nature of past American ventures there, e.g. even in Vietnam polling appears to show that the US is viewed more favorably than China.
Same applies with Russia in Eastern Europe of course, though the reasons there are probably a bit more obvious to the average Eurocentric onlooker.
Same applies with Russia in Eastern Europe of course, though the reasons there are probably a bit more obvious to the average Eurocentric onlooker.
Who is advocating a cold war again? I only ever see two beneficiaries of it: USA and China. And no other nations seriously caring about it, much prefering to embrace a multipolar world around the corner. Only in the US is it a US versus China thing and only in China is the reverse true. Read the media of each nation and it's evident. Other nations pick up on it and are, if foolish, or else just hedging, going along for the ride with respect to their own national strategies. It's a stupid idea. We've had one and don't require another whether the Chinese here blame the Americans or the Americans blame the Chinese. The frame, "cold war", is that which ought to be rejected. Entirely. It's species death. No time for childish tinhat military idiots and thinktanks trying to maintian a dead hegemonic ordering which cannot ever be.
it depends on the country, I guess. while few of the countries in southeast asia are willing to align with the US. a lot of african, south american countries are more than happy to tie up with china. japan is also an interesting example. because it is a terrible idea for them to align themselves with the US. it might be beneficial in the short term but not so much in the long term. japan has long been aligning itself with the US and it has done nothing but slowly destroyed its economy.
I think a lot of it stems from the idiot huntington’s clash of civilizations doctrine. which is rooted in ignorance, bigotry, and orientalism. it reduces nations, and religious identities in the east to simplistic notions while refusing to acknowledge how diverse, dynamic, and pragmatic they actually are.
The US withdrew from the Middle East, and that continues, because the Middle East, economically, demographically, and just generally, is rising. The era of war is over. Waiting for thinktank idiots to figure it out. It requires a multi-decade transitional period which precludes Cold War campaign advertising (as framed in all your favourite news casts, China does it because it is aiming for Wilsonian American status, and thus "brand", globally, whilst America does it because it has a leviathan which should be growing slimmer, a vast war economic apparatus called "state", but they have no idea nor inclination as to how/why they should go about it).
So the US to Europe via NATO and China to the Stans and Russia with India and Africa and the Middle East left as outliers (with Brazil and other such states) which will, without question, reject all attempts at another dualistic cold war frame for it precludes their interests, too.
It's a marketing gimick for elections and campaign contributions in the "democracies" of the world and much the same, except long-term Chinese BRI planning, in the East. Economy is the start and end point of the entire thing and it is wrong-footed as it stands.
Who's tougher on [insert nation relative to campaign period in American/British electoral history - featuring such villains as, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and so on].
Much the same in Russia and China except the electoral mode, whatever you want to call it, is much different. The dialogue, however, is constant insofar as that frame, only America/NATO is used. Pakistan for India (with China thrown in occasionally); America/Rebels/India for Pakistan. And so on. It would be a farce if people weren't taking it seriously.
Last edited:
japan;s economic miracle happened while they were tied with the US.
third world countries did not come into existence to be part of a leftist cleansing fantasy: where the (usually western) leftist wipes away the sins of colonialism and imperialism by hoping 3rd world countries unite and topple the western hegemon. ignoring millenia of history before and even during colonialism to reduce the entire 3rd world to a one-dimensional "not the west."
i don't know if that's what you're doing (it's definitely the hints i'm getting from your posts), i've seen this a lot from self-described "anti-imperialists".
their economy has been terrible for more than a decade now. and it has more to do with terrible policies and refusal to acknowledge and renew ties with china.
as to your second point. I am seeing a new trend amongst so-called leftists. because they are frustrated with how there is no accountability for those in power. they tend to resort to half-baked lazy arguments like “but it is not just the US’s fault alone”, or “colonialism ended a long time ago”. I am not saying you’re doing this. but it’s a terrible stance that does nothing to improve the current state of things. is there millennia of history before colonialism, and slavery? sure but the state of the current world is more a result of the raping, pillaging, and endless wars being waged by certain countries and they bear more responsibility than others. citing history doesn’t absolve any of them of their sins.
Last edited:
I am so confused. what exactly is this guy trying to argue?
In layman’s terms, he’s a ‘nuclear bomb’ denier.