Miscellaneous News

coolgod said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Shigeru Ishiba on Japan’s New Security Era: The Future of Japan’s Foreign Policy​

Shigeru Ishiba, the next prime minister of Japan, exclusively shared his views recently on the future of Japan’s foreign policy in response to a request from Hudson Institute’s Japan Chair. The following is an unofficial translation of his response.





I dunno how those dead WWII soldiers feel about the Japs stationed on Guam again


Pretty high up on the nationalist scale for Japanese PMs.

Click to expand...

China is going against some sort of timer here. Japan is trying to weasel out of its obligations from ww2. This so called US-Japan alliance is a threat to the Potsdam declaration peace.

We don't have too many years, maybe 5-10 at most. Japan can't be allowed to militarize, China should strike first and with the purpose of annexation. Legal justification already exists. Asia cannot be truly safe until China is the undisputed leader of the region. And whoever leads Asia also controls the world.

US has since the start of going against China not managed to offer much serious threats. But this might be it.

If these muslim nations are crying over why China is not extending protection and sending in the PLA, like it's owed to them, will they also submit to Chinese jurisdiction and induct their nations into the People's Republic?
The muslim world is a billion strong, and there is precedent for Jihadists to take up arms. There are plenty of responsible stakeholders before you even come to China, a non muslim, Asian superpower.

Fact is, the only islamic leaders who did succeed somewhat in uniting the muslim world were generally non arab, for eg Saladin was a kurd and Baybars was from the Caucasus, and Timur was mongol-turkic.

Eventine said:

You're under selling the attractiveness of the system the US operates.

Put it this way. If you're like the Nazis during World War 2, even if you're richer and more powerful than all the countries around you, people will still fight you to the death, because your ideology is an obvious, existential threat. What the Nazis did in Eastern Europe sealed their fate - once the Slavs realized they were fighting against extermination and/or enslavement, they fought like cornered animals and threw themselves against the Nazi war machine until it broke.

By contrast to the Nazis, the US strategy today is the culmination of the British imperial promise. The goal is still hegemony, but they have much better PR, and are willing to share just enough power and wealth to get people hooked, divided, and played off against one another. The US could not have won the Cold War with their blatant white supremacism, so they changed it to one of "multi-culturalism." They could not convince poor countries into buying into their plutocratic capitalism, so they welcomed students from all over the world to learn at their universities, where their professors impressed upon them the "objective truth" of Western systems.

They then followed that up by empowering and enriching the elites that were willing to collaborate, while helping them, through global control of media & social media, to gain and maintain power in their respective countries. Thus, an "empire of the willing" was built.

It's not just about power. It's about how you use it.

Click to expand...

What you're describing is not something new that is invented by the US or the Britains. Essentially it boils down to enrich a few to gain their loyalty, use them to suppress and exploit the rest, use the spoil to keep enriching the few.

This is feudalism 101, it is inherently unstable as it will stratify the society and cause division which eventually leads to chaos. Exactly what we witness in all the 3rd world countries with heavy US influence. In fact US itself is becoming extremely stratified and divided, live by the sword die by the sword hmmm?

What China is offering is common prosperity, enrich the world so the world will enrich us in return. It takes more long term planning then US's good ole feudalism but it is also much more rewarding and stable. I don't know if you truly feel US's approach is the right way or you just resigned to nihilism

Overbom said:

The thing is though that as Israel has correctly read the geopolitical environment today and is doing what is doing, bet you that when/if China becomes the top dog, by that time Israel would have long accomplish its objectives and then started 'atoning' for its sins

Maybe they would preserve some limited areas where people can visit Palestinian cultural artifacts. Build some museums, maybe make a national holiday for remembering the bad things that then "old generation" did. Then new generation would say "why blame US for what our grandparents did" etc, basically the US defence for what they did to native Americans and black Americans.

See, smart countries know how to be nimble and flexible. In that case, as long as Israel knows how to play the game and read the geopolitical situation correctly, nothing serious will happen to it

Click to expand...

Yes, I know this, hence the last sentence of the post. They will have made themselves a very China-friendly country by then. And nobody in China will hold a grudge on them long enough to avenge the incidents decades past. I just hope that what's left of Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis can bait them one more time into showing thier true colors so China can pick it up right where we leave off in this incident.

Iranian president is definitely complicit in Nasrallah's death. Iranians voted in this person, smh.



India is green too! Lots of Jai Hinds gushed after seeing that scene.

coolgod said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1840494058717733151

Iranian president is definitely complicit in Nasrallah's death. Iranians voted in this person, smh.

Click to expand...

I'm telling you, these "reformers" are like senior citizens that keep getting scammed.

sheogorath said:

This position completely ignores the history of the Third World and how it is the west responsibility the state it is in. This is basically going "poor people are poor because they want to" and completely ignore the multitude of factors that go into poor people being and staying poor.

How do we expect the Third World to achieve any of that if whenever they try to gain control of their resources and move forward, they get couped, invaded or rigged and subservient elites put into place every single time since the dawn of the colonial era?.

How exactly are they supposed to succesfully break away from this cycle without the help of other, bigger countries?. Specially smaller countries that don't have the history, resource and cultural depth that its afforded by China size and long history, before you try to bring it up as an example, and even China didn't do it alone, either.

Would have China be able to break away from this cycle without the help of USSR?. Should have Stalin told Mao "is not our responsibility to bail out countries"?

Its hypocritical and delusional to demand such from the Third World, while also expecting to prioritize deaings with China and not expect them to get subverted by Western interests if you don't provide the mechanism nor the efforts for that not to happen.

Click to expand...

To be honest, if you look into the history of the Chinese Revolution, it's hard to say whether the help from the Communist International was more beneficial or more harmful.

You know this is why China doesn't formally call itself the leader or protector or whatever of the Global South. Doesn't act all dramatic like those Marvel/DC superhero movies.

When you do, you have all these guys expecting you to act like Superman to save their asses when they are in trouble and you have to act on it. China isn't even Bruce Wayne in his cvillian form because it ain't absurdly rich.

I would say thats a lot more responsible than supapowa India calling itself the Global South leader and Vishvaguru. You think China not doing much is bad, imagine India in this spot. Even ignoring religious hostilities, will India do anything? If anything it will make things worse because it will constantly say all this crap about helping leading to high expectations and then do nothing. Or worse it will somehow try to blame those being bombed that its their fault and they need to give something to mighty India to deserve being helped (which turns out to be worthless crap in the end).

Thats how you know India doesn't know what it means to be a leader. It cares only about the title and not about what it really means to lead or the responsibilities that come with it. It is no wonder in corporate, Indian managers don't really lead but abuse their power to force their underlings to work and steal credit from them. And you wonder why all these F500 companies are going down the gutter the.

Its funny coz a lot of Indians worship Deng Xiaoping thinking he is superman who single handedly saved China when they seem to completely get him wrong. Deng steered the direction of China that was built through the decades of work that China and its people put in before him. He himself said he was simply there to take China to the next stage after the previous one was completed and it is from there, China will have to progress to the stage after that.

You're a little caught up in the "quick defeat theory" mood. Don't easily fall into the mood of "quick wins" or "quick defeats".

Eventine said:

The US has had a few failures - particularly the various color revolutions - but also plenty of successes. I have a hard time believing that people are talking about US failures to orchestrate "organic movements" in a thread where we're literally witnessing the power of US elite capture on the Global South.

Make no mistake, the US is immensely successful at this game. That's why so many more countries worship the US than worship China, Russia, India, or any other competing power. Elites in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and most of the Arab world would rather send their children to Harvard and work in Goldman Sachs, than send their children to Qinghua and work in Huawei. This is despite the US continuously bombing their "fellow Muslims" for most of the last two decades.

That sort of power is deep rooted and tends to be underestimated. When people ask, "why is it that nobody in the Global South seems to do what is in their own best interest but just let the US win!?" They should remember that the cultural conditioning was established over the course of decades, if not centuries.

If there's one thing Western elites are extremely proficient in, it is in understanding the dynamics of multi-spectrum power and how to wield it. The writer in New York Times, the politician in Congress, the professor at Harvard, the industrialist in Lockheed Martin, the banker in Wall Street, the technologist in Open AI, the admiral of the Seventh Fleet, the intelligence agent in the Pentagon, even your average moderator on Reddit, they all work in coordination to advance the same common cause.

It's not just financial power; it's not just industrial power; it's not just cultural power; it's not just military power; it's not just espionage power; it's everything, all at once. And that's what the rest of the world, by comparison, are so bad at.

Click to expand...

You have the wrong conclusion. They tolerate it but if someone else offers a better deal, or comparable deal with fewer strings, and had the power to stop backlash, they'll take it. It is not ideological fervor but elite level selfishness.

Let me show you what real ideological fervor can do: 1940s China, 1950s North Korea, 1970s Vietnam, 2020s Afghanistan. Contrast to the collapse of the ROC on the mainland, how South Korea had to be brute force propped up for decades and even today has to be reminded to never waver towards China, the total loss of South Vietnam and Afghanistan.

So the question is really, is Iran an ideologically motivated state, or just a regular developing country? An ideologically motivated state often punches above its weight, a regular developing country has easily bought elites. All the propaganda - from both Iran and the west - said they were ideologically hardened, had religious fervor, etc and their track record in the Iran-Iraq War supported this idea.

But it turns out, they're currently just a regular developing country and people expected too much from them. It's not to say they're terrible and weak. They're just the Middle Eastern version of India, Nigeria, Argentina, etc. We don't expect India, Nigeria or Argentina to be the voices of their regions or to have righteous leaders that put themselves second to the people. So why expect Iran?