rudatron posted:

It keeps getting pointed out to you that, if you poll Taiwan on whether or not they want to be part of China, like Hong Kong, they also say no. They don't want to declare de jure independence, but they're more than happy to hold onto their de facto independence. You refuse to acknowledge this. It keeps getting pointed out to you that China is the one acting aggressive in the area, that maybe the onus should be on it to make concessions, first, before anyone does anything for it, or starts assuming it will enter talks in good faith. You refuse to acknowledge this.

quote:

It keeps getting pointed out to you that the Japanese government has sovereignty, both de facto and de jure, over Okinawa, that the Okinawans themselves may have issue with the government, but they don't seem to strongly desire a separate government system like Taiwan does, and therefore it's not illegal or wrong for the US to have bases there, because the government in Tokyo hasn't thrown away the lease yet. You refuse to acknowledge this.

quote:

I didn't notice a disclaimer you placed between parenthesis, in a post you made. I will acknowledge this. You then take that as evidence you're being intentionally misrepresented, and claim that this misrepresentation has continued.

Is this, in your mind, what debate and discussion looks like?

Chomskyan posted:

Yes, China should make concessions and work towards de-escalating the situation with its neighbors. I 100% agree with that. However, this is a thread about Okinawa and US Military bases, and that's definitely more connected to US foreign policy than Chinese foreign policy, hence the former being brought up more.

Boogaleeboo posted:

You've yet to address how the US maintaining it's status quo is an escalation, especially one comparable to building artificial islands to lay claim to more territory.

Chomskyan posted:

Chomskyan posted:

Building new bases is not the "status quo"

quote:

nor is a completely new policy of threatening to go to war with China over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands

quote:

Also some of the naval exercises between the US and it's allies are new.

Boogaleeboo posted:

You fundamentally don't understand the tents of representative democracy, do you?

Chomskyan posted:

Building new bases is not the "status quo", nor is a completely new policy of threatening to go to war with China over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands. Also some of the naval exercises between the US and it's allies are new. The US military exercises with the Philippines for example. Also certain US training drills with Japan.

Chomskyan posted:

Building new bases is not the "status quo", nor is a completely new policy of threatening to go to war with China over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands. Also some of the naval exercises between the US and it's allies are new. The US military exercises with the Philippines for example. Also certain US training drills with Japan.

Chomskyan posted:

What does this have to do with whether or not those actions are escalations?

icantfindaname posted:

They're both pretty self evident to any reasonable person, considering the aforementioned revanchist ultranationlism, general arrogance and aggression of the current Chinese government, plus basic geographic and military facts

quote:

The American security relationship with Taiwan includes both the base in Okinawa and selling them arms. They're both important

quote:

The American base-building is as much refurbishing and reshuffling of the bases as it is expansion, I would argue no that's not a meaningful escalation taken out of context.

quote:

As for driving warships around China's illegal islands that's an escalation, but not an unprovoked one, and not one that is out of proportion to the initial Chinese provocation.

quote:

And finally, reaffirming that the US would go to war over the territorial integrity of one of its closest allies isn't a escalation either, because that's self-evident even without a press release confirming it

quote:

It really, really does boil down to this for you:

icantfindaname posted:

These are at most minor escalations, and it's a stretch to even call them that. As mentioned the new Okinawa base is motivated as much by a desire to shift the burden to less populated parts of the island as it is by expansion, and conducting military drills with close allies is a normal part of military cooperation between any countries. It is for all effective purposes a continuation of the status quo. Meanwhile China is actively and increasingly infringing on the territorial integrity of multiple neighbors, and openly threatening military escalation and war

icantfindaname posted:

This thread is about the US reshuffling the configuration of its already-existing bases in Okinawa to lessen the burden on the Okinawan people. There's no escalation involved, and no provocation behind the Chinese expansion into the SCS. If you have evidence otherwise please show it. The 'evidence' shown thus far has been of the 'China's gonna rule the world so gently caress you it's provocation if you don't do what they say' variety

Chomskyan posted:

Well considering that 1) in the 1940s the US was able to project its force in the Asian pacific and win WW2 without any bases in Okinawa I'd argue this isn't true.

Sagebrush posted:

It's a good thing nothing about the Asian Pacific geopolitical situation has changed since the 1940s.

Chomskyan posted:

Chomskyan posted:

Chomskyan posted:

Since the base being built at Henoko has significantly more capabilities than the base at Futenma, it is pretty clearly an expansion

Boogaleeboo posted:

I'm sorry, why would a new base being more advanced and functional than a base built in 1945 be surprising?

Chomskyan posted:

I didn't say it was surprising, just that it is an escalation.

Effectronica posted:

Taiwan has been part of China for more than 200 years. The idea that this condition remains is actually much stronger than Japanese claims that Okinawa and the Ryukyus are integral parts of Japan, or that Alaska and Hawai'i are integral parts of the United States of America.

Now, only about 2% of the people of Taiwan want to live under the brutal oligarchic rule of the Communist Party of China, but this insistence on a kind of telepathy wherein the establishment of a democratic government on mainland China would see Taiwan declaring total independence as the only possibility is spooky. It suggests that you all are something not quite human, with how in lockstep you think and act.

icantfindaname posted:

Do you agree that the Chinese escalation in the SCS is greatly out of proportion to any American escalation you say is happening? China is the net escalator here, and I don't think you can reasonably argue otherwise.

quote:

Considering that China is actively escalating, plus the Chinese government's ideological character and its apparent confidence in / arrogance concerning its current and future strength, I do not think a diplomatic deal as proposed by the war college guy would be a fruitful path forwards. The Joint Communiques were made at a nadir of Chinese power, and when they needed an ally against the Soviets; my impression of the current Chinese government is that they're not interested in a negotiated settlement

rudatron posted:

Both the Japan and US are not in a vacuum, the reason the bases exist is because of China, you don't get to dodge the issue. Your attempt to 'unskew the polls' is laughable - if the Okinawans are 'afraid' and, therefore, anonymous phone polls that clearly show a majority for remaining a part of Japan, are not reliable, then why is it that Taiwan, in a much more precarious position, refuses to give up de-facto independence? Do I get to unskew the polls in whatever direction I want, or is this something you've only granted upon yourself? How do you know 100% of Okinawans are actually fine with the US bases, but are really scared of upsetting both you and Effectronica. *Washes hands* case closed.

quote:

The point about comparison with Okinawa and Taiwan was about consent of the governed. Taiwan doesn't want to be part of the PRC. Okinawa does want to be part of Japan. You need to accept these facts. I have been consistent in my standards. You do the same

Chomskyan posted:

I do think that the escalations on both sides are more or less equal, although there's no objective way to measure this.

quote:

But I also think there's a good chance they'd accept a grand bargain like Goldstein is proposing

Chomskyan posted:

I don't think it's an appropriate response for China to be building artificial islands in the South China Sea, because I don't agree with further escalating the situation on either side. I do think that the escalations on both sides are more or less equal, although there's no objective way to measure this.

I would argue that China is acting from a position of weakness and views itself as being encircled by the US. It's wants to expand its regional influence and see's the best way of doing that as acting aggressively. But I also think there's a good chance they'd accept a grand bargain like Goldstein is proposing if the US were willing to stop escalations on its end and make movements towards diplomacy.

For what its worth, the US would also probably be willing to deal with China if they made similar gestures.

Boogaleeboo posted:

One side is doing the same qualitative things it has always done, in relatively the same quantity too. The other isn't, by a clear and overwhelming margin. That seems fairly objective.

quote:

I think we could kill them all with biological weapons and ultimately nobody would care, thankfully the US only rare sets foreign policy based on the ideas of crazy people. And removing US bases from US soil to make China feel better is exactly as crazy as what I just said.

icantfindaname posted:

We fundamentally disagree on the nature of American escalations, then. I think you can argue the US has made minor escalations, but not on a scale to justify China perceiving a major and fundamental threat to its influence and lashing out because of it. The whole argument rests on bad assumptions about American escalations. I think China is probably trying to grab as much as it can, because it realizes it is currently at or close to a local maximum in its power relative to that of the US. The correct response for the US is not to escalate, but also not to make any major concessions. Diplomatic talks wouldn't necessarily hurt the US or its influence but I would not expect them to produce any results

Chomskyan posted:

New bases, new drills, new declarations all mark escalations, even if they're not new concepts.

quote:

Also your argument seems to be to define escalation in a way the encapsulates the things China does and excludes all the things the US does.

quote:

What even is this? Sorry dude, I just don't get your edgy "joke" about mass murdering Chinese people. Or how removing an unpopular US base is the same as mass murdering Chinese people. Or whatever it is you're trying and failing to communicate.

Boogaleeboo posted:

Why?

quote:

No it doesn't, it defines it as one side taking radically new action while the other doesn't. Which you haven't refuted, you've just said that "Well this is new too". Ok, that's a stupid argument you've made a few times. Try backing it up. Mine is so manifestly simple it doesn't require much. The only way you can list US renovation in Japan as an 'escalation' is by a logic that also counts the advancement of the....well honestly like 5 guys in the Chinese military that have gear that was state of the art in the late 80s, but still. Those 5 guys suddenly using better tech as an escalation. And if you do, it's a wash. Their tech goes up, ours go up, all the same in the end.

Building new islands to lay claim to more territory is naked expansionism, and a massive escalation by every conceivable metric. We are doing nothing that is vaguely similar. They are escalating, clearly. We are not, as all actions are clearly matched by the same qualitative types of actions from them. They build new bases, have new drills, and so forth. They are the ones breaking the status quo with new aggressive moves. We are not.

quote:

I'm sorry, we'll add basic literary analysis to understanding of basic democratic practices and value judgments on the massive list of poo poo you don't understand. To dumb it down, suggesting we should weaken the defense of US citizens on US soil in Guam to make China feel better is the strategy of a crazy person, as is mass murdering the Chinese. And it's *exactly* as likely the US will do either. Was that straightforward enough for you?

Chomskyan posted:

Because those actions all present new threats to the way China exerts influence within the region.

quote:

Actually you tried to claim removing a US base from Okinawa is "exactly as crazy" as genociding the Chinese. You're now trying to subtly revise what you said and it isn't working.

Bip Roberts posted:

Oh man the horror of working for the defense of countries that are the target of nationalist expansion.

Effectronica posted:

Are you willing to say outright that the goal of the People's Republic of China is to invade and annex Japan and the Philippines, at an absolute minimum, or are you just engaging in Mad Libs and trying to find the right combination of words that will get people to have a come-to-Jesus moment about how great it is that the US and the Tokyo government consistently ratfuck Okinawa and its population?

Bip Roberts posted:

Well China is actively militarily expanding into Philippine and Vietnamese waters in the south china sea and has be breaking agreements with Hong Kong with regard to internal governance. Last time Taiwan elected a strongly pro autonomy government they shot missiles at them so they might start doing that again. It seems prudent to work with those countries who want it to help prepare military readiness.

Effectronica posted:

OK. There's a huge leap from "wants to grab economically valuable undersea oil and gas fields" and "wants to maintain control of all of China and crush democratic dissenters" to "wants to invade and annex all their neighbors", which is what your post was intimating with "nationalist expansion". There are good reasons why the US should assist Viet Nam, the Philippines, the Republic of China, South Korea, and Japan against Chinese hegemony in the region. It would be even better if we weren't an imperial state and could act for those good reasons! However, simply saying that we self-evidently need 20% of the land area of Okinawa for military bases is not convincing. Inflating the capacities of the PLA/N is not convincing. Declaring that Okinawans have to simply deal with it is not convincing. Declaring that Japan is a functional democracy is not convincing. The vast majority of what people are saying consists of an effort to avoid dealing with the problem that 80% of Okinawans would rather take their chances with China than the USA! This is ridiculous for people saying this is about defending the people of Okinawa. I understand that you feel really proud about knowing about foreign policy, but you have to set that pride aside and look at the big issues here.

Effectronica posted:

OK. There's a huge leap from "wants to grab economically valuable undersea oil and gas fields" and "wants to maintain control of all of China and crush democratic dissenters" to "wants to invade and annex all their neighbors", which is what your post was intimating with "nationalist expansion". There are good reasons why the US should assist Viet Nam, the Philippines, the Republic of China, South Korea, and Japan against Chinese hegemony in the region. It would be even better if we weren't an imperial state and could act for those good reasons! However, simply saying that we self-evidently need 20% of the land area of Okinawa for military bases is not convincing. Inflating the capacities of the PLA/N is not convincing. Declaring that Okinawans have to simply deal with it is not convincing. Declaring that Japan is a functional democracy is not convincing. The vast majority of what people are saying consists of an effort to avoid dealing with the problem that 80% of Okinawans would rather take their chances with China than the USA! This is ridiculous for people saying this is about defending the people of Okinawa. I understand that you feel really proud about knowing about foreign policy, but you have to set that pride aside and look at the big issues here.

Bip Roberts posted:

Hmm, interesting. Maybe we should make an agreement with the Japanese government and ask them.

drilldo squirt posted:

An opinion poll that says 80% of people in Okinawa don't want a new base doesn't mean they would rather have china put bases there. That's a stupid thing to say.

Effectronica posted:

Yes, we should continue to legitimize the one-party pseudo-democracy of Japan. This is a very smart idea if we're suddenly going to be humanitarians rather than imperialists.

drilldo squirt posted:

You're the one saying Okinawans would chose china over America, duder.

drilldo squirt posted:

I disagree that japan is a one party pseudo democracy, do you have anything to support this assertion?

Effectronica posted:

Someone with a functioning brain would be able to read that in the context and see that as "Okinawans would rather face the possibility of Chinese aggression and domination than accept American military aid." I am sorry that you are lacking in this regard.

drilldo squirt posted:

I don't see where you get that idea from a poll that says 80% of Okinawan don't want a new American base. What if they have other reasons to want or not want it?

Effectronica posted:

Sure, we could assume that the inscrutable Nihonese is unfamiliar with the notion of "consequences", such that we can insist that Okinawans actually really love Americans who, judging from the members of the American Freikorps earlier in this thread, often hold the belief that Okinawa is theirs to do as they wish with, and some of whom act on it by killing, assaulting, and raping Okinawan civilians. We could do that. Or we could be something other than a stain in the fabric of life, and conclude that the justifications fail to convince this 80% of Okinawa that it's worth dealing with the Americans to have an assured defense.