[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[angelfromanotherpin]

Okay, PL, you made a very specific claim, and you didn't back it up at all. You realize that, right? Nothing you referenced indicates that Japan is being set up to attack China as a U.S. proxy, clearly or otherwise, and no matter how many times you type 'aggressive,' the actual text you actually quoted says 'exercise military action if one of its allies were to be attacked,' which is almost definitionally not aggressive.

So yeah, maybe spend your energy being upset about things that are real?

[Mechalich]

PL, you're being grossly hyperbolic. Yes Japan has reinterpreted their constitution and have considered actually modifying the constitution itself, but that in no way have involved a transformation into an 'aggressive militarized state' (whatever that even means). Japan still has more legal restrictions on its military capabilities and deployments than pretty much any other nation that actually has a military at all. Likewise, the primary motivating force behind these changes have been a combination of Japanese national pride and general Japanese nervousness as to their strategic situation in the face of China's rapidly increasing military expenditures and naval buildup (which is perfectly within the rights of the PRC, but is the kind of thing that reasonably makes neighbors nervous). There certainly was US support behind these moves - since they make things easy for the US in terms of joint operations in the region, but the desire of one nation to have closer military coordination options with a close ally (which is the relationship that the US and Japan currently have) is not some sort of inherently sinister interest.

[PhoneLobster]

Japanese national pride and general Japanese nervousness

Odd you say that since it has WILDLY unpopular with the japanese public enjoying just short of no public support and massive public opposition. But hell it's not like you actually did what I suggested and go do your own research on it, I mean fuck, CLEARLY.

In the case of the push to turn Japan into an active and aggressive military force I have provided you dumb chuckle fucks with both enough information and the incredibly limited details you need to go and read about it yourselves. You don't get to go "Amphibious assault forces, growing military budget, two years running of highly significant contentious electorate defying very likely unconstitutional changes to Japanese law and policy "supported" by the USA, nah WE SEE NOTHING, WE HEAR NOTHING, LALALALALALALA!"

It just makes you look like the asses you are.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Dude, the burden isn't on your audience to find evidence to support your extraordinary claims. Either produce actual evidence or admit you don't have any and shut the fuck up.

[angelfromanotherpin]

double'd

[Prak]

So, on a completely different note...

[deaddmwalking]

PL, your claim that the US is pushing Japan to become an agressor is at least as, and quite possibly much stupider than any claim about what might have happened...if.

[PhoneLobster]

Either produce actual evidence or admit you don't have any and shut the fuck up.

The US has been pushing Japan to enlarge it's military and lift restrictions on using it since the Iraq war. They now HAVE done so the Japanese military is expanding, restrictions on it's deployment HAVE been lifted. That you actually dispute these claims and related facts is astounding.

This is not an extraordinary claim I didn't produce evidence on, it's bald simple fact, common knowledge even for anyone who reads ANY news articles on the Asia Pacific region. The fact that the US has been openly and publicly asking for this over that period is a matter of public record. The fact that it has now happened is a matter of public record.

What do you want? Annotated and detailed line by line references? Do some fucking reading, it's a simple topic search, I gave you the topic, I gave you a quote covering one of the most shocking developments in recent Japanese history, you don't get to demand more than that just because you refuse to go browse through a few simple international news articles by yourself.

Which dare I say is why you don't fucking know about this and refuse to believe it.

[angelfromanotherpin]

And again, no part of that backs up any part of the actual extraordinary claim you made that:

That being the USA has been using Japan as a proxy to antagonize China and all the while has been pushing Japan VERY hard towards once again becoming an aggressive militaristic power with the clear intent of getting Japan to attack China on behalf of the US in the general region.

Yes, Japan has relaxed some of the restrictions on its military. Here is a list of things that is not evidence of:

1) US using Japan as a proxy to antagonize China.
2) US pushing Japan to become an aggressive militaristic power.
3) US clearly intending to get Japan to attack China on behalf of the US.

If you don't see how the one does not support the other three, I can only assume you're using paralogic.

[PhoneLobster]

1) US using Japan as a proxy to antagonize China.

The act of removing these restrictions on the Japanese military is itself an act intended to antagonize China. It also has greatly displeased much of asia including South Korea.

These changes also very specifically among other things permit the Japanese military to engage in patrols of "disputed" maritime regions that... oh yeah for some reason they apparently disputed despite the fact they could not patrol them prior to these changes. That antagonizes China.

These changes permit the Japanese military to engage in a broader range of "patrols" and "exercises" along side the US military you know, right the fuck on top of Chinese regions, you know the patrols and exercises that exist exclusively to antagonize China.

The fact that you do not see those as acts intended to antagonize China is your fucking issue.

2) US pushing Japan to become an aggressive militaristic power.

Every fucking article you read explicitly states variations on the theme of the US "supports and welcomes these changes" and often points out that it supports and welcomes them because the US has specifically been asking for changes like these to enable "collective self defense" (and other things) for a long while so that Japan can "perform a more active role" in the region and international conflicts.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS YOU RETARD?

Performing a more active role with your military and joining in more conflicts IS literally being a more aggressive militaristic power. Going from "only allowed to use military in defense" to "join any war the US asks you to" and "run around putting your military in places that make China angry" is VERY much going from being defensive and pacifist to becoming aggressive.

3) US clearly intending to get Japan to attack China on behalf of the US.

Yeah, now if the US can generate any pretext for a war of aggression on China, and it has a lot more chances for such pretexts now with all these potential new Japanese "Patrols" and "Exercises" all over more and more distant disputed waters, then even if the initial conflict isn't with Japanese vessels in disputed waters then the US, or indeed any US proxy in the region need only ask Japan to help them as an Ally and Japan can join a war of aggression attacking China on behalf of the US.

This is explicitly what the "collective self defense" stuff is for.

That and also enabling Japan to join random international illegal wars of aggression like Iraq freely and without restriction other than asking how high next time the US asks them to jump.

[angelfromanotherpin]

...

Do you understand the difference between conjecture and evidence? Serious question.

[PhoneLobster]

Do you understand the difference between conjecture and evidence? Serious question.

I don't think anyone does well enough to give you the help you clearly need.

[Mechalich]

Performing a more active role with your military and joining in more conflicts IS literally being a more aggressive militaristic power. Going from "only allowed to use military in defense" to "join any war the US asks you to" and "run around putting your military in places that make China angry" is VERY much going from being defensive and pacifist to becoming aggressive.

I have no idea what you mean by saying aggressive in this context. Japan has gone from what were among the most severe constitutional restrictions on military action placed on any sovereign state on the planet, to significantly less restricted but still more restricted than most other modern sovereign states. Japan retains considerably more constitutional barriers to military action than a comparable country like France.

France, by the way, is conducting peacekeeping operations against Islamic radicals in Mali right now, which is significantly further in terms of military action than Japan has gone or seems to have any immediate plans to go, and no one in their right mind refers to France as an "aggressive military power"

Yeah, now if the US can generate any pretext for a war of aggression on China, and it has a lot more chances for such pretexts now with all these potential new Japanese "Patrols" and "Exercises" all over more and more distant disputed waters, then even if the initial conflict isn't with Japanese vessels in disputed waters then the US, or indeed any US proxy in the region need only ask Japan to help them as an Ally and Japan can join a war of aggression attacking China on behalf of the US.

Wait, you actually believe that the US is actively engaged in trying to develop a pretext for a war of aggression with China? Such a viewpoint has no legitimate support anywhere in actual US political or military circles. A military conflict between the US and China would produce nothing but losers (it would instantly crash the economy of both countries in a way that made 2008 look like a fine day at the beach for starters) and probably precipitate a global depression while also raising the specter of a nuclear exchange.

Now, US military thinkers are worried that, if the small cadre of decision makers in the PRC perceive weakness by the US - of if they feel sufficiently imperiled that foreign adventurism seems an appealing way to shore up domestic support - the PRC might do something rash, and alliances and assets are put in place to make it less likely for that to happen and to insure that, in the worst case scenario, the US would be in a strong position. Further military integration with Japan - which is the most powerful advanced democracy in East Asia and already one of the most important US allies - is a natural path to pursue in that context.

Additionally, there are other reasons to pursue further military integration with Japan, including the possibility that North Korea does something utterly insane. In fact changes to Japan's military stance matter in terms of missile defense which is rather significant considering that Japan lies within the potential range of a nuclear missile strike by North Korea.

The fact that you do not see those as acts intended to antagonize China is your fucking issue.

You might try to consider that Japan is responding to antagonism by China, or at least that these actions flow both ways.

Japanese military spending, for example, was effectively flat from 2000-2014. It then increased by slightly more than 2% in 2015 and 2016. In the same timeframe, China's military budget has been skyrocketing at increments of 6-8% each year. Here's a graph of Chinese military spending. If I lived in Japan, that would freak me out a little.

The PRC's intentions with regard to their military buildup may be entirely benign - you can even argue that much of it has a purpose as economic investment in an overheated economy - but it makes the neighbors justifiably edgy as a result.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I've yet to see PL post a link. If he wants me to search out links for him I charge $50 an hour (minimum 2 hours) to do his work for him. Otherwise he's some aussie hillbilly screaming at the wind.

[Username17]

I've yet to see PL post a link. If he wants me to search out links for him I charge $50 an hour (minimum 2 hours) to do his work for him. Otherwise he's some aussie hillbilly screaming at the wind.

I'm still waiting for him to explain what the fuck he was talking about when he described Balochistan as being on China's border. It crosses the borders of three countries, but none of them is China.

-Username17

[Prak]

Clearly that map is American propaganda to protect our hegemony.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm confused as to when the den got so bad that people demand I post multiple links to prove a specific easily testable assertion about whether a specific law in a specific nation has been passed in a specific year, but Frank gets to literally randomly claim without any links or even details that Chinese forces are totally fighting in random name dropped nations and the international news somehow ISN'T front paging that shit because what? It's an arm of the Chinese propaganda machine?

You claimed Chinese forces were fighting in Pakistan (you lying shit), I did some fucking research on Chinese forces in Pakistan, because I'm not a lazy fucker content to live in ignorance when a few minutes on google can provide endless detailed information. What comes up for Chinese forces in Pakistan is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir you know on the Chinese border, and you don't get to complain about any mix up when I supposedly have to apparently provide exhaustive links to prove common knowledge about specific very recent high profile events in Japan and you provided nothing to back your extraordinary claim that "why yes phonelobster a nation China is invading right now that you asked me to name is PAKISTAN! Just like, no one mentions it ever and the legit story I claim is for reals doesn't even pop up on a search matching the claim I made!".

I know that USAssholes are all about hypocritical double standards but this is a farce.

[Username17]

I'm confused as to when the den got so bad that people demand I post multiple links to prove a specific easily testable assertion about whether a specific law in a specific nation has been passed in a specific year, but Frank gets to literally randomly claim without any links or even details that Chinese forces are totally fighting in random name dropped nations and the international news somehow ISN'T front paging that shit because what?

Just so we're clear, since the beginning of this conversation, I have provided four links and three maps. You have provided zero supporting evidence of absolutely anything you have claimed. I'm not being held to a lower standard than you, you've been spouting off gish gallops of crazy conspiracy theories without so much as a link to infowars.

When you make bizarre claims that are obviously and laughably false and four different people call you on your bullshit, and then you jump off to another jank-ass claim without even slowing down to support a single fucking thing you've ever said... you don't get to bitch and complain that people are starting to say "Evidence or STFU." Other people in this conversation, even stupid people like maglag, have not burned their credibility remotely as fast and hard as you have.

So go back up any of your claims. Seriously, any of them. Until you supply any evidence at all for any thing you've claimed, we are collectively tired of listening to you. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. From now on you don't deserve even full sentence rebuttals. You get slow head shakes and a condescending "No."

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I'm confused as to when the den got so bad that people demand I post multiple links to prove a specific easily testable assertion about whether a specific law in a specific nation has been passed in a specific year,

The United States of America passed a budget for the year 2011, and this is proof that China invaded Russia in 2016 triggering WWIII.

I sure hope that you agree with everything I said above without me providing any evidence, because it's easily verifiable that the US passed a budget in 2011.

[Prak]

PL's childhood photos have been released to the internet

[Longes]

Bloomberg: "Treat Russia like the international poison it is"
Welcome to Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[Schleiermacher]

Well, inflammatory headline aside, that article seems pretty on-point to me.

Two caveats though:

1. I, at least, have the distinct impression that this is more precisely the fault of the Putin administration embracing propaganda and holding international law and custom in contempt, rather than Russia being "rogue" or particularly blameworthy on a structural level.

2. That Putin is doing this does not automatically give opponents of Russia the moral high ground, as we saw in the Russia-Georgia war.

Edit: Third caveat. That bit about the UN Security Council is dangerous and wrong. Russia undermining the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council doesn't mean the US should do the same thing -that only makes the problem worse.

[Stahlseele]

Meanwhile, in germany, we are a bit concerned about Russia deploying Anti Air, Anti Ship and Multi Purpose Missles with 400-600km reach to Kaliningrad.
Yes, that basically gives them control of the entire ostsee area as well as the airspace up to and including Berlin. Also, the multi purpose missles are, of course, perfectly capable of mounting nuclear warheads on them, so there is that as well . .

[Longes]

Meanwhile, in germany, we are a bit concerned about Russia deploying Anti Air, Anti Ship and Multi Purpose Missles with 400-600km reach to Kaliningrad.
Yes, that basically gives them control of the entire ostsee area as well as the airspace up to and including Berlin. Also, the multi purpose missles are, of course, perfectly capable of mounting nuclear warheads on them, so there is that as well . .

We are not all that thrilled about MK-41s in Romania and Poland either.

[Username17]

Romania has its own problems.

In more seriousness, I am only really concerned about countries building up weapon systems if they are also behaving erratically on the world stage. France builds fighter jets and missiles and shit and I don't care because even when gentleman's asshole Sarkozy was in charge the country wasn't threatening its neighbors.

Putin on the other hand has gone way over the line. Like, all the lines. He's not only threatening Russia's neighbors, he's pumping funding into dangerous and insane political groups all over the world. If the National Front actually won in France, I would suddenly be worried sick about all their missiles and fighter jets, because those guys are both evil and crazy. And Putin has been pumping up France's National Front for no apparent reason but that he seems to like to see the West burn.

Xi Jinping is often opposed to various movements in the West. He seeks to expand China's influence, and that very much includes sending ships and tanks around to threaten to shell neighboring countries. But he seems fundamentally reasonable. He does things that seem reasoned and based on China's perceived interests. He can be negotiated with in relatively good faith even though he keeps "and we'll fucking invade if we perceive weakness" on the table at all times. He's not on our side, he's on his own side, but mutually beneficial agreements can and are reached with him regularly.

In the last five years or so, Putin seems to have gone completely insane. He's taking actions not to benefit Russia or even increase his own wealth and power, but simply to hurt other countries. Not to make Russia safer, just to make the world a shittier place. It's like he's become a zero sum thinker in his old age, and he literally thinks that a recession in France improves his standing in some way. It's fucking nuts.

The fact that Russia has the second most powerful and advanced military on Earth is not in abstract something that bothers me. Some country is going to be number 2 by definition. But the Putin of today being in charge of that military is cause for grave concern. While the Putin of ten years ago being in charge of it pretty much wasn't.

-Username17