Blackstone
Brigadier
PRC and Pakistan have very close relations, and even partnerships, but I wouldn't call it "alliance," at least not in the sense of US-Japan alliance.
PRC and Pakistan have very close relations, and even partnerships, but I wouldn't call it "alliance," at least not in the sense of US-Japan alliance.
OTPRC and Pakistan have very close relations, and even partnerships, but I wouldn't call it "alliance," at least not in the sense of US-Japan alliance.
US military ceased to be an occupation force after the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, so it's incorrect to call it an occupation force (today). Next, Japan isn't a slave country to the US but an enthusiastic ally. Why? Because it's in Japan's interests to be America's ally. On the other hand, I'd say Japan could be described as a vassal state of the US, but even that is changing under Shinzo Abe.@Blackstone @delft
U S military is an occupying military in Japan---. Surprised that you have forgotten that Japan is a ' slave ' nation of the US---it was last conquered in 1945---.
It depends on the U S to give it some military freedom.
I thought Gwadar was lauded as a commercial port that can support some military needs, and not a full on military base. Did that change recently?Pakistan and china do not share that history---the first naval base would be coming soon at gwadar---. Secondly---the pak military is not dependent on the chinese military to protect its assets.
In the fifties the then Indonesian president Sukarno invented the expression "guided democracy". And that is just what Japan is. I remember the vast resistance against a new military treaty with US around 1960 but the parliamentary elections are based on effective gerrymandering so that the government is nearly always LDP and when it is not the bureaucracy will not change policies anyway.@Blackstone @delft
U S military is an occupying military in Japan---. Surprised that you have forgotten that Japan is a ' slave ' nation of the US---it was last conquered in 1945---.
It depends on the U S to give it some military freedom.
Pakistan and china do not share that history---the first naval base would be coming soon at gwadar---. Secondly---the pak military is not dependent on the chinese military to protect its assets.
Japan's interests are up to the Japanese people and the leaders they choose. There's no doubt Japan has been "guided" by the US after WW2, but that might also be in Japan's interests as it gets protection from the US plus assistance to rebuild the war-gutted nation.In the fifties the then Indonesian president Sukarno invented the expression "guided democracy". And that is just what Japan is. I remember the vast resistance against a new military treaty with US around 1960 but the parliamentary elections are based on effective gerrymandering so that the government is nearly always LDP and when it is not the bureaucracy will not change policies anyway.
The interest of Japan should be accepting the independence of countries as established by the Westphalian Peace Treaties of 1648 and confirmed by the Charter of the United Nations and develop itself to cooperate with others as convenient and not be a US vassal. But the bureaucracy has been formed to maintain just that.
OTJapan's interests are up to the Japanese people and the leaders they choose. There's no doubt Japan has been "guided" by the US after WW2, but that might also be in Japan's interests as it gets protection from the US plus assistance to rebuild the war-gutted nation.
OT- we should take this discussion elsewhere, but think post war Germany on why.OT
It was also gutted by the Plaza agreement.
And what amount of "protection" needs a large country like Japan?
That was geographically a very different situation. And the advantage Germany won from the war of 1870, the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, would not be available in the current situation in the World. It brought no such advantage in any war in the 20th century and it was a major factor leading to WWI.OT- we should take this discussion elsewhere, but think post war Germany on why.