{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/21/2013 4:31:29 PM
4
While I personally disagree with Washington or the Administration distancing itself and not backing GB on the Falklands, I am willing to be that when comparing the two, their "reasoning" is something along these lines.
Japan compared to China is going to have a hard time asserting themselves, especially militarily. If we show our support, perhaps that will help to calm the Chinese down from their wound-up state and get them to discuss the matter more rationally.
-vs-
There are people who have lived for generations on the Falklands and they are clear as to which claimant they are linked. The issue is being ramped up and over-emotionalized by the Argentinians, but if two super-powers come in and say "STFU" that only further encourages and enraged the Argentinians who are feeling like the "little guy who is being bullied".
Now, I don't agree with the second position, I personally believe that our statement as a nation should be "This was sorted out before, we understand that it is an emotional issues for Argentinian politics, but the furor being made is meant to distract the population from internal issues, much like the Chinese/Japanese conflict over some sandbars/rocks that are little more than navigational hazards. The Falklands "belong" to the people who live there, not to the nearest mainland nation. If that were so, England would belong to France. We know how well that idea worked."
English
-
You would be incredibly surprised how many times England and France have joined or have come close to, i would send you a link if your interested in knowing. Also I agree with the US backing up Japan on the military front but it should really keep its nose out the Islands issue. Why can't the US just say "We wish for both nations to openly discuss options to peacefully solve this problem, however if the matter turns into a conflict the US will stand by Japan"? It pretty much says the same thing, though I guess you could take that the wrong way.......Could allowing Japan to own a military solve the problem so the US can get its nose out?
-
Edited by Diplomat: 1/21/2013 8:47:58 PM[quote] Also I agree with the US backing up Japan on the military front but it should really keep its nose out the Islands issue. Why can't the US just say "We wish for both nations to openly discuss options to peacefully solve this problem, however if the matter turns into a conflict the US will stand by Japan"?[/quote] We don't want it to turn into conflict, though. The primary difference between the two situations is that one country has a Navy that barely goes out to sea, and the other has a missile force capable of pretty much destroying naval forces in the immediate area. There is a large difference between [i]saying[/i] you'll help someone, and sending a Carrier Strike Force to actually enforce your statements. The fact is, the United States has over [url=http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26516.htm]15 billion invested into Argentina[/url]; a very large sum that we do not want to lose. Backing the United Kingdom puts these investments at a serious risk, something we're not willing to risk when Argentina is subject to naval impotence. Thereby incapable of actually doing anything to the islands. [quote]It pretty much says the same thing, though I guess you could take that the wrong way.......Could allowing Japan to own a military solve the problem so the US can get its nose out?[/quote] Japan does own a military though, a quite sizable one at that.
-
Japan's military is not a matter for US "permission", I believe that they have a constitutional mandate that prevents them from having any force that is capable or likely to be "offensive" and all of their defense spending is truly on actual "defense" not on capabilities to project force or place ordnance in an offensive move. I believe that the current US/Japanese cooperation is seen as a "Shield/Sword" where the JSDF is the shield for Japanese interests and holdings and the US (through consultation and mutual defense treaties) is the "sheathed sword" that Japan hopes to never need, rely on, or call upon.
-
Yes, you are correct. The JSDF's force structure is designed to augment U.S. defense short comings in a possible Pacific war by fulfilling minesweeping, escort, and ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) operations.
