The Australian and Japanese prime ministers met virtually on Jan. 6 and signed a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) that makes it easier for each nation's troops to operate in each other's country.
As important, it strengthens the political and psychological groundwork for increased military cooperation between the two nations.
The Good News
It's the first such agreement Japan has signed with a country besides the United States. And it took a while.
An agreement in principle was reached in November 2020 between Japan's then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison—after six years of negotiating. It took another 14 months to finalize the deal.
The door is now open wide in both directions for practically any initiative the two sides desire.
One should remember, however, that the Japanese and Australian militaries are not strangers. Japanese forces have been training in Australia since the early 2010s, to include sending ships and troops to Talisman Saber and other exercises. Japanese ships have also exercised alongside the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean Malabar Exercise and in the South China Sea.
Individual Australian Defense Force personnel have been assigned to Japan for decades. And Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) aircraft have used U.S. bases in Japan (under United Nations auspices) in recent years while enforcing North Korea sanctions. And in September 2019, a detachment of Australian F18s conducted a first-ever joint combat exercise with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) in Japan.
A decade ago, most observers considered a Japan-Australia RAA and all the above activities to be impossible.
Chinese threats, pressure, and saber rattling do indeed have a silver lining.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/japan-australia-defense-the-raa-is-signed-now-what_4212614.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-15&utm_medium=email
Both countries can thank China for bringing them closer together.
Memories of the second world war are burned into the psyche of China. It's as if the Nanjing massacre happened last week. The CCP will not like this.
Now that the deal has been signed, the important thing is what both sides make of it.
Are there some easy things to move things forward?
An Australian Army liaison officer is now assigned to the Japanese Army's Ground Combat Command (GCC) in Japan. But that's not so useful. It will be better to see an Australian Liaison Officer or two assigned to Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) headquarters in Tokyo.
The right officers, doing some pushing and persuading—and with some help from the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy–can move the Australia-Japan defense relationship forward on a far broader front than just "army to army."
And when the Americans and Japanese finally establish a joint headquarters in Japan (hopefully before hell has frozen over), the Australians should be an integral part of it.
Another helpful initiative would be deploying a RAAF squadron to Japan on long-term deployment and, vice versa, a JASDF squadron to Australia. Bringing the Australian Army and Navy to exercise in Japan is also easy.
Besides the favorable "optics" of the Japan Self-Defense Forces and Australian Defense Force (ADF) operating together, the JSDF benefits from deeper exposure to another military and different ways of doing things. And both benefit from the psychological and political ties that come of deeper military-to-military relations.
The JSDF absolutely needs opportunities for realistic training to better professionalize itself. It can't do this in Japan owing to limited training areas and excessive local restrictions.
Australia offers excellent opportunities for all three JSDF services to train by themselves, together, and with other militaries.
Australia's Northern Territory, in particular, is the best place in the entire hemisphere for the sort of unrestrained, combined arms training that Japan desperately needs. JSDF's only other alternative is to make the trip to Southern California—and even then, U.S. training facilities are not as good as those in the Northern Territory.
Here's one idea: combine Japanese and Australian amphibious forces into a "joint task force" to master the complex air/sea/ground coordination that is part and parcel of amphibious operations—but also applicable to a range of military operations.
Send a Japanese amphibious ship—even an older landing ship tank (LST)—and a battalion of Japanese "Marines" from the new Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) down to Australia for six months, and operate out of Darwin as well as over in Queensland with Australia's amphibious force.
It's a good way to give Japan's ARDB some real experience outside Japan, in an unfamiliar environment and with foreign forces. That's how a military improves. Australia's amphibious force can also use the practice.
And maybe operate the Australian-Japanese task force up into Southeast Asia or throughout Oceania, with HA/DR training and response as one of its missions. That's urgently needed as the Chinese regime's influence steadily expands in the region.
This is all far preferable to the canned exercises in Kyushu or Hokkaido—with "commissars" at JSDF headquarters in Ichigaya nearby to keep the training as "safe" (in other words, unrealistic) as possible—while cowering in fear that somebody might complain the training is "too noisy" or "scary."
But isn't the Talisman Saber exercise enough? Maybe just make it bigger?
No. Talisman Saber is a good exercise, but for the participants such exercises can become like a piano player who practices only one song. He might play it perfectly, but it's still just one song.
The RAA is politically important. Rather than giving in to Beijing's threats and bullying, two of Asia's key democracies deepen defense ties—with the potential for creating real operational capabilities—and employing them around the region.
The RAA agreement also belies Beijing's shrill claims that regional nations dislike Japan because of World War II and fear a remilitarized Japan. The Australians have as much reason as anyone to hold a grudge, but they've long since recognized that today's Japan isn't 1930s-1940s Japan. Take away Korea and China, and that's the feeling throughout most of the Indo-Pacific, if one looks closely.
This should have happened twenty years ago.
Defense Web of Democracies
The RAA is also good news for the Americans.
For starters, U.S. forces are overstretched regionally and worldwide. Whatever the JSDF does in, or with, Australia feeds into the United States' desperate (though unstated) need for a more capable JSDF. That means, a JSDF capable of fighting in its own right, and also as an ally. And this is no less beneficial to Australia—which is game but not big enough to defend itself against an angry People's Republic of China (PRC).
As important, increased Japan-Australia activities break down the "hub and spoke" nature of the U.S. presence in the Pacific. That's a construct that has American forces operating too often bilaterally with Asia/Pacific nations (for example, the spokes).
The "spokes" need to operate together—creating a more durable "web"—without the Americans driving things. Doing so improves capabilities and also deepens the previously mentioned psychological and political ties that come of military-to-military engagements between like-minded nations.
This doesn't mean the Americans are excluded or unnecessary, but rather it bolsters the U.S. presence as part of a more complex and stronger web of defense relationships. It should be seen as "cross-bracing" rather than as a replacement or a hedge.
The "web" approach is particularly important as, given the countries involved are democracies where policies can change with elections, the more there are overlapping defense relationships, the more likely the region as a whole can continue to build its defense posture even if the government changes in one of the partners.
Beijing is of course displeased with the RAA and will use its levers to try to stifle it before it can fully form.
Japan's once powerful pro-PRC constituencies in political, official, and business worlds are quiescent for now, but that can change. Given this, one wonders if Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's administration might put a brake on attempts to do more with Australia on the military front.
Something similar may even play out in Australia should the Labor Party win the next election. Laborites say they won't, but one wonders.
Also, hopefully, the Japanese government doesn't see the RAA as meaning Japan needs to do less defense-wise.
Kishida needs to allow the JSDF to up its game considerably. Japan's military still needs more money (for training and personnel) and to meet recruiting targets that it has missed by 25 percent annually for years. The JSDF is still not ready to fight a war—needing among other things, a joint capability (which it doesn't have).
Too often it seems that signing an agreement is an end in itself.
So here's an idea. A year from now, let's hold another press conference and see what has actually been accomplished out of the RAA—and what the Japanese and the Australians are doing with each other—that could only have happened because of the RAA.
Sometimes it's good to keep score.
I deeply hope this will result in an effective and meaningful defense element that will have meaningful effect upon China
Further, I hope this will spark other countries to take similar or even stronger action
Amongst western nations, Australia has stood up firmly against Chinese intimidation and aggression.
China is constantly using hostile and threatening language towards Australia with little to no effect.
For a while, relations between the two countries were cordial. That quickly dissipated after the Covid breakout, and China quickly demonstrated that friendly relations with them are strictly on THEIR terms, and comes with odious side effects that we would no longer permit. Attempts to influence politicians, organisations Chinese students into pro-China propaganda teams, attempts to control our foreign relations and other insidious acts showed that if you think China is your friend, it is already your enemy.
New Zealand is currently cosying up to China. They will learn the hard way.
It would be nice if other nations stood as firmly as us.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=434926 time=1642288453 user_id=1560
Amongst western nations, Australia has stood up firmly against Chinese intimidation and aggression.
It would be nice if other nations stood as firmly as us.
They have stood up strong against China The can be very proud
It would be huge if others did likewise
They are all scared.
New Zealand is cosying up to China hoping to replace Australia as their white friend in the Pacific. Good luck with that.
The best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=434942 time=1642296945 user_id=1560
The best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.
:thumbup:
Each and every altercation with pigs.... :sdfjh(2):
Relax ffs
He won't hurt you
If pigs behave, I won't hurt them.
Right. :wink:
Fear not. I'll protect you from him
You'd need protection against a wet piece of pasta....
Settle down.
Don't be afraid. He's a pussy cat
'sides, you have derailed enough good threads
Back in your box, kitten...
ac_boring
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=434945 time=1642299961 user_id=1676
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=434942 time=1642296945 user_id=1560
The best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.
:thumbup:
Each and every altercation with pigs.... :sdfjh(2):
I'd be happy to provide you the opportunity.
I don't have a walker.... it wouldn't be a fair fight.
Quote from: cc post_id=434941 time=1642294504 user_id=88
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=434926 time=1642288453 user_id=1560
Amongst western nations, Australia has stood up firmly against Chinese intimidation and aggression.
It would be nice if other nations stood as firmly as us.
They have stood up strong against China The can be very proud
It would be huge if others did likewise
Canada will never do that as long as the LIberal Party is in power.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=434913 time=1642279700 user_id=114
This should have happened twenty years ago.
Defense Web of Democracies
The RAA is also good news for the Americans.
For starters, U.S. forces are overstretched regionally and worldwide. Whatever the JSDF does in, or with, Australia feeds into the United States' desperate (though unstated) need for a more capable JSDF. That means, a JSDF capable of fighting in its own right, and also as an ally. And this is no less beneficial to Australia—which is game but not big enough to defend itself against an angry People's Republic of China (PRC).
As important, increased Japan-Australia activities break down the "hub and spoke" nature of the U.S. presence in the Pacific. That's a construct that has American forces operating too often bilaterally with Asia/Pacific nations (for example, the spokes).
The "spokes" need to operate together—creating a more durable "web"—without the Americans driving things. Doing so improves capabilities and also deepens the previously mentioned psychological and political ties that come of military-to-military engagements between like-minded nations.
This doesn't mean the Americans are excluded or unnecessary, but rather it bolsters the U.S. presence as part of a more complex and stronger web of defense relationships. It should be seen as "cross-bracing" rather than as a replacement or a hedge.
The "web" approach is particularly important as, given the countries involved are democracies where policies can change with elections, the more there are overlapping defense relationships, the more likely the region as a whole can continue to build its defense posture even if the government changes in one of the partners.
Beijing is of course displeased with the RAA and will use its levers to try to stifle it before it can fully form.
Japan's once powerful pro-PRC constituencies in political, official, and business worlds are quiescent for now, but that can change. Given this, one wonders if Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's administration might put a brake on attempts to do more with Australia on the military front.
Something similar may even play out in Australia should the Labor Party win the next election. Laborites say they won't, but one wonders.
Also, hopefully, the Japanese government doesn't see the RAA as meaning Japan needs to do less defense-wise.
Kishida needs to allow the JSDF to up its game considerably. Japan's military still needs more money (for training and personnel) and to meet recruiting targets that it has missed by 25 percent annually for years. The JSDF is still not ready to fight a war—needing among other things, a joint capability (which it doesn't have).
Too often it seems that signing an agreement is an end in itself.
So here's an idea. A year from now, let's hold another press conference and see what has actually been accomplished out of the RAA—and what the Japanese and the Australians are doing with each other—that could only have happened because of the RAA.
Sometimes it's good to keep score.
I can't help but feel this is too little too late..
In my opinion, Japan and countries like Australia need to engage Taiwan's military.
Measures such as this are more about optics than a new dawn in foreign relations.
It's main purpose is to declare to hostile nations that in the event of conflict, the signatories will combine resources to defend themselves. Despite our size, we are strategically important because of our remoteness. Bases can operate from northern Australia whilst out of reach of most conventional and tactical weapons. Long range bombers might reach our shores, but only several hours after they have been observed en route.
Given that we operate F35's, such a move would not be wise.
Japan's navy will desperately need a base out of reach of Chinese weapons. The US currently operates a major airforce base in the Northern Territory that can accommodate their strategic bombers.
These are critical factors that need to be considered by other nations contemplating hostile intent.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=434909 time=1642278944 user_id=114
The Australian and Japanese prime ministers met virtually on Jan. 6 and signed a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) that makes it easier for each nation's troops to operate in each other's country.
As important, it strengthens the political and psychological groundwork for increased military cooperation between the two nations.
The Good News
It's the first such agreement Japan has signed with a country besides the United States. And it took a while.
An agreement in principle was reached in November 2020 between Japan's then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison—after six years of negotiating. It took another 14 months to finalize the deal.
The door is now open wide in both directions for practically any initiative the two sides desire.
One should remember, however, that the Japanese and Australian militaries are not strangers. Japanese forces have been training in Australia since the early 2010s, to include sending ships and troops to Talisman Saber and other exercises. Japanese ships have also exercised alongside the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean Malabar Exercise and in the South China Sea.
Individual Australian Defense Force personnel have been assigned to Japan for decades. And Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) aircraft have used U.S. bases in Japan (under United Nations auspices) in recent years while enforcing North Korea sanctions. And in September 2019, a detachment of Australian F18s conducted a first-ever joint combat exercise with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) in Japan.
A decade ago, most observers considered a Japan-Australia RAA and all the above activities to be impossible.
Chinese threats, pressure, and saber rattling do indeed have a silver lining.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/japan-australia-defense-the-raa-is-signed-now-what_4212614.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-15&utm_medium=email
Both countries can thank China for bringing them closer together.
The US probably regrets the constitution they forced on Japan seventy seven years ago.
Quote from: Herman post_id=435023 time=1642382259 user_id=1689
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=434909 time=1642278944 user_id=114
The Australian and Japanese prime ministers met virtually on Jan. 6 and signed a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) that makes it easier for each nation's troops to operate in each other's country.
As important, it strengthens the political and psychological groundwork for increased military cooperation between the two nations.
The Good News
It's the first such agreement Japan has signed with a country besides the United States. And it took a while.
An agreement in principle was reached in November 2020 between Japan's then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison—after six years of negotiating. It took another 14 months to finalize the deal.
The door is now open wide in both directions for practically any initiative the two sides desire.
One should remember, however, that the Japanese and Australian militaries are not strangers. Japanese forces have been training in Australia since the early 2010s, to include sending ships and troops to Talisman Saber and other exercises. Japanese ships have also exercised alongside the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean Malabar Exercise and in the South China Sea.
Individual Australian Defense Force personnel have been assigned to Japan for decades. And Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) aircraft have used U.S. bases in Japan (under United Nations auspices) in recent years while enforcing North Korea sanctions. And in September 2019, a detachment of Australian F18s conducted a first-ever joint combat exercise with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) in Japan.
A decade ago, most observers considered a Japan-Australia RAA and all the above activities to be impossible.
Chinese threats, pressure, and saber rattling do indeed have a silver lining.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/japan-australia-defense-the-raa-is-signed-now-what_4212614.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-15&utm_medium=email
Both countries can thank China for bringing them closer together.
The US probably regrets the constitution they forced on Japan seventy seven years ago.
You mean about Japan only being allowed to have a self defense military on it's own soil?
Japan has all but signalled its intention to develop a more aggressive military capability contrary to the surrender terms.
I'm sure the US has nodded quietly in agreement, but even if it hasn't, there is nothing they can do to enforce that treaty now.
The US has been pressuring Japan for decades.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=435062 time=1642391279 user_id=1560
Japan has all but signalled its intention to develop a more aggressive military capability contrary to the surrender terms.
I'm sure the US has nodded quietly in agreement, but even if it hasn't, there is nothing they can do to enforce that treaty now.
Exactly. There is little fear in Asia anymore about Japan rearming or expanding it's alliances beyond just the US.
True.
I suspect Japan already has a more potent military than we know of.
Japanese manufacturers by law must be capable of pivoting in a very short turn around and fabricating war components which they've prototyped and improved from designs sourced around the world. It's one of their safeguards.
That was also my understanding.
Japan's industrial base can be very rapidly converted to military equipment from tanks to ships and planes.
To uniforms, small arms, everything....
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=435068 time=1642391579 user_id=1560
True.
I suspect Japan already has a more potent military than we know of.
I've heard that Japan has a very modern, well trained, volunteer armed forces.
Yes, but small in relative terms.
Although they have the capacity to build their own material, they will need to greatly increase the standing army.
I see rumour mongers on Youtube claiming Japan has bought IP from Lockheed Martin from the YF 23 project that was in many ways superior to the F22 Raptor.
The reasons the Raptor won are not as relavant as they were given the advances in technology. Japan want's a 6th Gen air superiority aircraft and they are well down that path.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=435110 time=1642401226 user_id=1560
Yes, but small in relative terms.
Although they have the capacity to build their own material, they will need to greatly increase the standing army.
I see rumour mongers on Youtube claiming Japan has bought IP from Lockheed Martin from the YF 23 project that was in many ways superior to the F22 Raptor.
The reasons the Raptor won are not as relavant as they were given the advances in technology. Japan want's a 6th Gen air superiority aircraft and they are well down that path.
Japan seems secretive about military purchases..
I guess they don't want to spook their neighbours.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=434969 time=1642358787 user_id=3254
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=434913 time=1642279700 user_id=114
This should have happened twenty years ago.
Defense Web of Democracies
The RAA is also good news for the Americans.
For starters, U.S. forces are overstretched regionally and worldwide. Whatever the JSDF does in, or with, Australia feeds into the United States' desperate (though unstated) need for a more capable JSDF. That means, a JSDF capable of fighting in its own right, and also as an ally. And this is no less beneficial to Australia—which is game but not big enough to defend itself against an angry People's Republic of China (PRC).
As important, increased Japan-Australia activities break down the "hub and spoke" nature of the U.S. presence in the Pacific. That's a construct that has American forces operating too often bilaterally with Asia/Pacific nations (for example, the spokes).
The "spokes" need to operate together—creating a more durable "web"—without the Americans driving things. Doing so improves capabilities and also deepens the previously mentioned psychological and political ties that come of military-to-military engagements between like-minded nations.
This doesn't mean the Americans are excluded or unnecessary, but rather it bolsters the U.S. presence as part of a more complex and stronger web of defense relationships. It should be seen as "cross-bracing" rather than as a replacement or a hedge.
The "web" approach is particularly important as, given the countries involved are democracies where policies can change with elections, the more there are overlapping defense relationships, the more likely the region as a whole can continue to build its defense posture even if the government changes in one of the partners.
Beijing is of course displeased with the RAA and will use its levers to try to stifle it before it can fully form.
Japan's once powerful pro-PRC constituencies in political, official, and business worlds are quiescent for now, but that can change. Given this, one wonders if Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's administration might put a brake on attempts to do more with Australia on the military front.
Something similar may even play out in Australia should the Labor Party win the next election. Laborites say they won't, but one wonders.
Also, hopefully, the Japanese government doesn't see the RAA as meaning Japan needs to do less defense-wise.
Kishida needs to allow the JSDF to up its game considerably. Japan's military still needs more money (for training and personnel) and to meet recruiting targets that it has missed by 25 percent annually for years. The JSDF is still not ready to fight a war—needing among other things, a joint capability (which it doesn't have).
Too often it seems that signing an agreement is an end in itself.
So here's an idea. A year from now, let's hold another press conference and see what has actually been accomplished out of the RAA—and what the Japanese and the Australians are doing with each other—that could only have happened because of the RAA.
Sometimes it's good to keep score.
I can't help but feel this is too little too late..
In my opinion, Japan and countries like Australia need to engage Taiwan's military.
That is true, but also very tricky. Sales is one thing, but military exercises between countries like Australia, Japan and Taiwan would trigger a response from China.
It would never happen without US approval and participation.
Quote from: Bricktop post_id=435181 time=1642461367 user_id=1560
It would never happen without US approval and participation.
Us participation. That would really piss off China.
Are Taiwans army, navy and airforce independent from China?
Very. Totally US supplied, although it's F15's are getting a little old now.
But they do have US missile and radar systems. If China got frisky, it will cost them.
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435454 time=1642574097 user_id=136
Are Taiwans army, navy and airforce independent from China?
Everything Taiwanese is independent from China since they are not part of China.
I got confused by the names they use.
China liberation navy = Taiwan
Peoples liberation navy = Baddies
Republic of China = Taiwan
Peoples republic of China = Baddies
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435476 time=1642617307 user_id=136
I got confused by the names they use.
China liberation navy = Taiwan
Peoples liberation navy = Baddies
Republic of China = Taiwan
Peoples republic of China = Baddies
Taiwan's official name is Republic of China, which used to be the name of all of China..
The name of the navy of Taiwan is the ROC navy..
It's arguable whether the ROC ever legally held the sovereignty of Taiwan..
Chiang Kai Shek accepted the surrender of the Japanese on behalf of the victorious USA..
Did that make his proclamation of retrocession legal?
Taiwan's status today is left over from World War 2, not China's civil war.
Interesting stuff
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435477 time=1642618037 user_id=3254
Taiwan's official name is Republic of China, which used to be the name of all of China..
[What is China's current official name? ]
Quote
Quote
[What was the official status pre-ww2?]
Quote
Did that make his proclamation of retrocession legal?
Quote
{I understand that, and that makes the argument that it never broke from China as it was not part of China}
Quote
People's Republic of China(PRC).
Quote
It was part of Japan from 1995-1945 as a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
Quote
Nope, but Chiang didn't care.
Quote
It was and is part of China. CKS, pretended it was China.
Well, seems if it was run by Japan (no matter how it got to be), it was fair game after they surrendered
& Chiang beat China to the draw
Quote from: cc post_id=435490 time=1642629133 user_id=88
Well, seems if it was part of Japan (no matter how it got to be), it was fair game after they surrendered & Chiang beat China to the draw
What happened to the sovereignty of Taiwan after Chiang acting as an agent of the victorious USA?
Did it automatically return to the then Republic of China as the generalissimo claimed?
No, that can only be accomplished through a treaty which is how Taiwan became part of the Empire of Japan..
Taiwan's soverignty has never been held by either the Republic of China or People's Republic of China for one day..
Chiang Kai Shek's authoritarian regime exercised effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan), but not sovereignty.
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=435484 time=1642627768 user_id=56
Quote
People's Republic of China(PRC).
Quote
It was part of Japan from 1995-1945 as a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
Quote
Nope, but Chiang didn't care.
Quote
It was and is part of China. CKS, pretended it was China.
Whats your social credit score?
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435497 time=1642632079 user_id=136
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=435484 time=1642627768 user_id=56
Quote
People's Republic of China(PRC).
Quote
It was part of Japan from 1995-1945 as a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
Quote
Nope, but Chiang didn't care.
Quote
It was and is part of China. CKS, pretended it was China.
Whats your social credit score?
Social Credit was the name of a now defunct socially conservative party in Canada.
True. Social Credit AKA "Socreds" ruled BC for a long while .. like 40 years with only a single short NDP break
BC was fairly conservative until 1990 .. although it was their going VERY conservative that finished them
Odi - I think China is the only one issuing Social Credit scores, assuming they followed through on it
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435492 time=1642630176 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=435490 time=1642629133 user_id=88
Well, seems if it was part of Japan (no matter how it got to be), it was fair game after they surrendered & Chiang beat China to the draw
What happened to the sovereignty of Taiwan after Chiang acting as an agent of the victorious USA?
Did it automatically return to the then Republic of China as the generalissimo claimed?
No, that can only be accomplished through a treaty which is how Taiwan became part of the Empire of Japan..
Taiwan's soverignty has never been held by either the Republic of China or People's Republic of China for one day..
Chiang Kai Shek's authoritarian regime exercised effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan), but not sovereignty.
So, the last president of China before communism accepted the surrender of the Japanese, but he told the Chinese this was a legal return of Taiwan to China and it was not?
Quote from: cc post_id=435517 time=1642634778 user_id=88
True. Social Credit AKA "Socreds" ruled BC for a long while .. like 40 years with only a single short NDP break
BC was fairly conservative until 1990 .. although it was their going VERY conservative that finished them
Odi - I think China is the only one issuing Social Credit scores, assuming they followed through on it
I´m aware that it is a Chinese thing.
I´m insinuating that Shen is an agent of the Chinese government.
Zhong Xina is a traitor. :laugh3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQlG3UI7RU8
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435551 time=1642652403 user_id=136
Quote from: cc post_id=435517 time=1642634778 user_id=88
True. Social Credit AKA "Socreds" ruled BC for a long while .. like 40 years with only a single short NDP break
BC was fairly conservative until 1990 .. although it was their going VERY conservative that finished them
Odi - I think China is the only one issuing Social Credit scores, assuming they followed through on it
I´m aware that it is a Chinese thing.
I´m insinuating that Shen is an agent of the Chinese government.
She is saying it was a Canadian thing until the 1970's.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=435550 time=1642652008 user_id=2015
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435492 time=1642630176 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=435490 time=1642629133 user_id=88
Well, seems if it was part of Japan (no matter how it got to be), it was fair game after they surrendered & Chiang beat China to the draw
What happened to the sovereignty of Taiwan after Chiang acting as an agent of the victorious USA?
Did it automatically return to the then Republic of China as the generalissimo claimed?
No, that can only be accomplished through a treaty which is how Taiwan became part of the Empire of Japan..
Taiwan's sovereignty has never been held by either the Republic of China or People's Republic of China for one day..
Chiang Kai Shek's authoritarian regime exercised effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan), but not sovereignty.
So, the last president of China before communism accepted the surrender of the Japanese,
- yes, I believe so
Quote
- not that I know of
I'll bow to fash for exact details
Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=435550 time=1642652008 user_id=2015
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435492 time=1642630176 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=435490 time=1642629133 user_id=88
Well, seems if it was part of Japan (no matter how it got to be), it was fair game after they surrendered & Chiang beat China to the draw
What happened to the sovereignty of Taiwan after Chiang acting as an agent of the victorious USA?
Did it automatically return to the then Republic of China as the generalissimo claimed?
No, that can only be accomplished through a treaty which is how Taiwan became part of the Empire of Japan..
Taiwan's soverignty has never been held by either the Republic of China or People's Republic of China for one day..
Chiang Kai Shek's authoritarian regime exercised effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan), but not sovereignty.
So, the last president of China before communism accepted the surrender of the Japanese, but
Retrocession Day in Taiwan is based on a lie started by dictator Chiang Kai Shek.
The big worry for me is that this issue is a matter for China.
That the US staunchly backs Taiwan is based on the same principle it backs Israel, South Korea and Ukraine.
It wants outposts close to their traditional enemies.
Does the average US citizen care much for Koreans, Israelis or Ukrainians?
The average American is fed a bunch of bs about American exceptionalism and evil adversaries which want to end liberty and godliness.
Has been for decades.
That's why their government gets away with sending their sons and daughters to die in jungles and deserts.
If it weren't for Pearl Harbor, much of the other conflicts never would have had public support....
Its true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was convenient for Roosevelt and Churchill.
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435653 time=1642739986 user_id=136
Its true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was convenient for Roosevelt and Churchill.
IN FDR's case, do you mean to enter the war?
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435660 time=1642742544 user_id=3254
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435653 time=1642739986 user_id=136
Its true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was convenient for Roosevelt and Churchill.
IN FDR's case, do you mean to enter the war?
Yes.
He wanted to enter the war but the American people were against it.
They are isolationists.
Who wants to go die in somebody elses war.
Pearl Harbor changed all that.
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435661 time=1642743605 user_id=136
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435660 time=1642742544 user_id=3254
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435653 time=1642739986 user_id=136
Its true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was convenient for Roosevelt and Churchill.
IN FDR's case, do you mean to enter the war?
Yes.
He wanted to enter the war but the American people were against it.
They are isolationists.
Who wants to go die in somebody elses war.
Pearl Harbor changed all that.
Some people even blame the USA for Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435662 time=1642745989 user_id=3254
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435661 time=1642743605 user_id=136
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=435660 time=1642742544 user_id=3254
Quote from: Odinson post_id=435653 time=1642739986 user_id=136
Its true that the attack on Pearl Harbor was convenient for Roosevelt and Churchill.
IN FDR's case, do you mean to enter the war?
Yes.
He wanted to enter the war but the American people were against it.
They are isolationists.
Who wants to go die in somebody elses war.
Pearl Harbor changed all that.
Some people even blame the USA for Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
The Americans were screwing with the Japanese long before ww2...
I don't know what the Japanese were thinking attacking Pearl Harbour..
The Imperial Army wanted to attack Eastern Russia to secure raw materials.....the Imperial Navy disagreed..
In the end, the Imperial Navy won.
The Japs were between a rock and a hard place....somewhere which the US to a large degree put them.
As an island nation without resources like oil and iron, they were being manipulated/throttled down.
The US was also actively partaking in the war efforts against the rising German movement in the late 30's through aid and unofficial fighters.
It was like we're seeing an old version of recent years in Ukraine and bordering states near Russia.
It's what the US deep state does, or did. Fuck with countries on the quiet until they push them to a confrontation, blame the other country, lie in the media, and "officially" declare the hot war component of the already established cold war.
But China is different.... this time.... China has fought a hard decades long psych war where they've embedded into US institutions like the education, media, and corporate sectors....then pursued cross debts and cross exposures so that neither nation can act out overtly.
China or the US falls abruptly, everything gets lost.... it's a slow roll tactic until one nation or the other deals a first and final catastrophic strike.
Pretty much a MAD scenario but economically. No nation wants to nuke anybody... it would be like shitting in your own bed.....so China pivoted to MAD manufacturing warfare.
I think they'll probably win in the end. They're more measured and patient than their western counterparts. They want to reign supreme over the entire globe.... despite the Marxists/CCP being a pack of evil motherfuckers.
But in their defence, only marginally more evil than their western counterparts....