Death and Taxes

984, we’re not there to protect, well rather, we’re there to protect our interests.

If the United States military were to vanish overnight, by the end of the week Japan would be a Chinese province.

Of course this is hypothetical and not very useful, as if US dominance of the west hadn’t occurred since WW2, the countries of Europe and democratic Asia would have maintained armies of their own.

Of course we need a military, but we don’t need to spend so much money on it. Clinton spent a lot less than Reagan or either of the Bushes, and the economy boomed under him. Less military spending had a lot to do with it.

Notice I said UN and NATO operations. Iraq doesn’t fall under either. I mean various little things such as Sudan, the Balkans, etc. I would be interested to see what would happen if the US suddenly adopted an isolationist strategy, I mean, since countries get mad that we’re policing.

Oh, I don’t think that you shouldn’t do your part. Is the bulldoze way you do it that annoys the rest of us.

No no no. You were right the first time. We shouldn’t be policing. So that means no more American intervention (except in the case of something akin to Afghanistan or WWII). We’ll let the rest of the world handle itself. Y’all apparently don’t want or need the might of the US armed forces helping out. As I mentioned earlier, you have Canada.

Maybe without America helping out at all the rest of the Western world outside of England will learn to get a military.


Only, the US wouldn’t allow that, as they’re policy is to make sure no country ever approaches them in power again (though I think China probably will, or already has or is close to, making it an effort in futility).

I’m not 100% clear on this now, this is from my brother and he’s not here to ask.

And I’m the conspiracy theorist, not him. :confused:

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat?
Then let the louns beware, Sir;
There’s wooden walls upon our seas,
And volunteers on shore, Sir:
The Nith shall run to Corsincon,
And Criffel sink in Solway,
Ere we permit a Foreign Foe
On British ground to rally!
We’ll ne’er permit a Foreign Foe
On British ground to rally!

The UK doesn’t fear.

The current heavy US budget mirrors the US policies which are totally opposite of isolationism. If the rest of the world can handle itself, it may do so in ways which don’t go according to US interests (Taiwan, ahem).

Go back to your isolationism Americans, the might of Canada shall keep peace throughout the land.

“Democratic Asia” is such a relative term that it’s almost meaningless. Japan has been ruled by one party, consisting of various business interests, for all but three years since World War II. South Korea was ruled by authoritarians of various sorts until the late eighties, and has become more democratic only in recent history. Taiwan was likewise under martial law until the early nineties. “Pro-Western” and “capitalist” do not mean the same thing as “democratic.”

We would be much better off, and much more respected.

To be fair, distrust of the government has been building since World War II, and they are arguably elected so often because nobody really cares enough to vote for any other party, especially since those other parties might do something. It’s hard to make a case for a government being too controlling when their method of stopping cigarette sales to minours is to put a god-damned frowny face next to “Under 18” on the vending machines that sell them. Not saying you’re doing such a thing, just pointing out the general Japanese attitude of politics.

Oh, and limited isolationism works incredibly well. As for what would happen if we did it, less world leaders might applaud when our president is likened to Lucifer.

Oh, and I just saw the remark about Japan being a Chinese province and did a spit-take. Literally. First one since a friend told me he was getting married to another before he told me he was going out with that friend. So be proud. Anyhow, this is false on such a level that it is ridiculous. First off, if anyone took sudden, semi-random military action against Japan, it would be Korea. There is infinitely more sheer, blistering hatred from North Korea to Japan (and arguably vice-versa) than anyone else in Asia could ever hold a candle to. Second, there is simply no good reason for China to take Japan (besides some leftover anger from WWII), and a whole bunch of reasons why it is a very, very bad idea:
First, Japan is a vrey small chain of islands. Not only are islands (even ones without military) stupidly hard to conquer, there are also few or no natural resources really left in Japan. Second, the Japanese populace is pretty hardcore capitalist, which would lead to some cultural meshing problems. Third, Chian does not need anymore fucking people. They already have more than they know how to deal with without adding some of the most densely populated cities on Earth to their nation. It’s not like they would take it for room to spread out it, it would not do any sort of good for their economy, and it would be a pain in the ass to get the Japanese people switched over to communism.

I don’t mean that they’re too controlling. I just mean that one-party rule, by a party of businessmen without any real ideology to speak of, is not quite “democratic,” especially not in the idealistic sense of “democracy” that American neoconservatives claim to uphold. But I don’t have anything against the LDP, since I don’t even live in Japan. If that’s the kind of government developed by Japanese, that’s certainly their own prerogative.

Ah, yes, in that sense, it’s not democratic. My point was just that one party always winning (as long as there are opponents who have a fair chance; one without AKs pointed at you while you vote, that is to say) doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy. It just so happens that the LDP almost always wins because “They haven’t fucked up anything yet” kind of thing. There’s not really much for them to do except pass silly laws that don’t do anything to appease people who say they aren’t doing enough about stopping whatever while not offending the anarchist types like me and nobody really gets pissed.
It’s a milk-toast democracy, to be sure, but I’d say it’s still a democracy. Although, if you meant in the neo-conservative idealistic sense, I would agree it is most certainly not a democracy.

If one party has enough money to always buy its way into power, and also controls most of the bureaucratic apparatus of the government and civil institutions, that accomplishes much the same objective as the AKs. It’s a kind of business oligarchy, with democratic trappings or elements.

I don’t know, from what I’ve heard from the friends I made in Japan, the LDP either doesn’t really buy its way into pwoer so much as the fact that people really don’t even want to vote for anybody else, because, again the LDP doesn’t really do anything and doesn’t upset anybody and Japan’s done pretty well under it; or, the LDP is able to buy electiosn because of teh sheer number of supporters it is has, as in, enough corporations and individuals back it, its wealthy supporters simply out-number those of other parties.
So it’s either a really apathetic, lame democracy or a Roman/Aristocratic democracy.
I can see your point, though, about it not being a “real” democracy. I’d just rather call it a democracy than a “Corporate Politically-Apathetic State” or some such thing because I have a hatred of over-specific political terms that burns deep inside my veins. Had I my way, there would be “good government” and “bad government.”

EDITED: I just saw the “single party” comment and bit about beurocratic control I had missed before, although your statement still applies to America, if you ask me. Our party just puts two candidates up against each-other and goes by two different names to make elections more exciting to watch.

Well, this “business oligarchy” might become the predominant form of government of this century. But it’s not just wealth that allows a party to obtain power, it’s also access to the bureaucracy of that country. Here, for instance, many of the actual policy decisions or initiatives are formed, not by this or that individual senator or congressman, but in bureaucratic institutions (policy boards, think tanks, lobbies, offices and so forth) that are accountable to no one.

Agreed. I didn’t read the comment closely enough in my intial response, which is why I edited it out of the post above, although I was, evidently, too late.

Don’t count on Canadians – they are already involved in the vicious Hans Island war :wink:

Seriously though, there are about 2,500 Canadians in Afghanistan right now. The number of soldiers may seem insignificant, compared to 21,000 US troops, but their mission has changed lately. From a quasi-peacekeeping force they morphed into something more aggressive – now Canadian units are going after the Taliban and fighting them head-on on a very hard terrain. Of course the body count went up significantly. And now Harper gets flack from the opposition, and the population in general, every time one of the Canadian boys is brought back home in a casket wrapped in the Maple Leaf flag. So the Conservatives are on a shaky ground if more troops were to be deployed as part of NATO forces in Opiumstan or anywhere else.

Speaking of the Cold War, The Russian government is to consider the draft of the new military doctrine prepared by the Defense Ministry expert group. The doctrine declares USA and NATO key potential enemies. Plus, not too long ago Russia and China held joint military exercise. This could be a preview of “coming attractions”: Chinese manpower + Russian hardware make a nice martial combo.

They have fucked up the economy for consecutive years.

The economy fucked itself over, the LDP just did literally nothing whatsoever to help. No, no, wait. They allowed businessmen to remove their suit-jackets in work in the summertime so they were not so hot the killed themself as a way of stemming the suicide rate among businessmen. In 2005. Twenty years late and utterly non-helpful, but I can’t say “nothing”.