UK politics are strange. People do very much seem inclined to vote on personalities, rather than issues, and even though they often hate things that recently elected parties have done, they still continue to vote for them out of some odd sense of loyalty.
You're not kidding! It's like that hear sometimes, mainly among the voters who are more set in their ways. I've always voted Liberal so I will KEEP voting Liberal. It's just what they do. The younger generation seem to vote with whatever strikes their fancy at the time, if they care at all.
Sadly politics is something a lot of people here just don't care about. They vote for whoever yells about less taxes and that is it. They don't know anything about their policies, their plans, their ideology.
This is one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy. Politics in most democracies is no longer about political ideology, but rather how to "play the game of politics", say whatever voters want to hear now and make excuses later.
The other fundamental problem, at the heart of the West's debt crisis, is the issue of "inter-generational conflict", where the voters and stakeholders of tomorrow's society has no say in today's elections. For decades governments have had no rational reason to slash spending and hike taxes, or better regulate the financial services industry, to rein in the looming crisis, because they would have been voted out at the very next election by voters who wanted "better services TODAY and lower taxes NOW". Why invest in a project that won't pay off in 20 years when I won't be around to reap the political reward? When my party probably won't even be in power?
In contrast, China's single-party rule allowed the Communist Party to essentially sacrifice a generation's welfare by keeping wages artificially low whilst the government and the growing business elite made a fortune to enrich themselves and also invest for the future, because the Communist Party plans as if it expects to still be in charge in 2050.
When you study politics academically, you realise that no political system and no political ideology is perfect. I personally would like votes to be restricted to those who have had a reasonable degree of education in the subject, which should be part of your civic duty, such that elections should be a national debate about the merits of Liberty vs Equality, and ideologies such as Libertarianism, Socialism etc... Of course such a system raises questions about "who would provide the education?", "what if I am too poor or incapable of accessing this education?" and "I pay my taxes, I am a stakeholder in society, yet I cannot vote beause I do not want to study politics?"... etc
@Anduin - Your first graphic actually illustrates my point that the UK has about 50% of its trade with the EU quite well. While the "Growth" figures in the green bubbles are big and distracting (they got me for a minute) the actual "£x.xbn" values listed under each country name show that approx. 50% of our trade is with EU trade partners. Going off the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs website's figures for April this year (newest published) we had about £17bn of imports and £12bn in exports within the EU and almost exactly exactly the same amount in imports and exports outside the EU. Link is here for fact checking purposes.
As for the ethics of free movement of labour - yes, ideally we should have a fully trained stock of candidates for every job within the country. But we often don't. From my experience there are many jobs that UK candidates won't touch, and not just jobs at the minimum wage. In my own industry UK graduates will not consider working in mid-sized provincial towns. Jobs in major cities are oversubscribed but smaller centres rely heavily on overseas recruitment to fill rotas, and I've ended up working alongside very capable Spanish, Greek, Polish and Dutch colleagues. (As well as African, Indian, Pakistani and Filipino folks, but we're discussing Europe)
My joke about the UK having annoyed just about every country in the world was a joke, but has a nugget of truth in it. This year is the first time in a century we've not been at war somewhere in the world. In the past 100 years Great Britain/the UK has been at war with (deep breath): Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire, Germany, Bulgaria, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Ireland, The Dervish state in Somalia, Iraq, Zionist forces in Palestine, Italy, Japan, Croatia, Romania, Finland, Thailand, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Vietnam, Communist rebels in Malaysia, North Korea and China, Egypt, Argentina, paramilitaries in Cyprus, Yemen, Syria, the Bosnian Serb Republic, Liberia and Sierra Leonean rebels. Many of them more than once. That's a lot of countries where we've killed people within living memory.
Britain undeniably has power. And I am proud to come from a country that produced visionaries like Newton, Darwin, Brunel, Turing and so on. But internationally we are stronger and more powerful as part of Europe than alone. The EU needs reform, and that could be achieved if out politicians actually pushed for it coherently.
@Corvino how could I not agree with you. I am going on a limb here and say, I would prefer a United States of Europe, than a European union. (You heard me. Get rid of westminster, we don't need this level of government if all the rules are made in one place! Make them in two places and confusion reigns) I want to vote for the people in charge. I want a say in what they do. I want to vote so I can get rid of the corrupt, bloated bureaucracy. I actually trust the peoples of Europe to do this. Democracy can be slow, but it is far quicker than the current system. Let the people decide, and BOOM. Job done.
The EU currently says NO to democracy. Lets wrangle some more and add an ammendment, we don't need to have people vote on it. The president has to be rigged and put in by other politicians. And sod the odd one who actually stands up and actually listen to what the voters wanted. (Big respect to the hungarian pm)
In other news, Japan has dropped it's pacifism concept and is seeking closer strategic ties with Australia and the U.S. which is sure to anger the Chinese.
''Japan is now working to change its legal basis for security so that we can act jointly with other countries in as many ways as possible.''
Personally, I don't see any problem with this, the Chinese have been skittish about their borders, well forever and Japan would be a nice counterbalance. However, this could also makes things much much more tense.
I also don't see why Japan shouldn't take part in joint international operations with other countries abroad.
The Japanese prime minister went on saying the Tokyo-Beijing relationship was ''one of the most important bilateral relationships'' but then blaming China for a deterioration.
Thoughts?
I can approach this topic from two perspectives.
1) As a Chinese person keenly aware of history. (biased, but a bias that matters when it is how 1.3bn Chinese people think).
Japan is an aggressive and dangerous country that has attempted to invade China the only two times in history when it felt stronger than China. (1937-45 and 1592-98) The Chinese people endured decades of unimaginable suffering under Japanese aggression in the 20th Century, including 20-30 million deaths during the "War of Resistance Against Japan", when the Imperial Japanese Army carried out unforgiveable atrocities including mass killings, rape, biological weapons testing. (Google Rape of Nanking, Three Alls Policy, Comfort Women and Unit 731 for details.)
Unlike Germany, which has genuinely atoned for Nazi war crimes in WW2 and where Holocaust denial is illegal, Japan still has a shrine in Tokyo that venerates convicted war criminals and right-wing mainstream Japanese politicians (including current governing party) regularly question Japanese culpability and the extent of war crimes in WW2.
Thus the re-militarisation of a Japan that does not recognise the lessons of history is a sad and dangerous development for peace and stability in the Asia and beyond. The Chinese government must do more to enhance our military capability, defend our national interests and ensure the tragedies of the 20th Century can never be repeated.
2) As a student of International Politics and the School of Realism
The re-militarisation of Japan is an inevitable consequence of the rise of China and the relative decline of the United States as Japan's guarantor of national security.
Tension and conflict between the incumbent hegemony and a rapidly rising power is all but inevitable. The United States would naturally attempt to constrain Chinese ambitions through relaxing its constraints on Japanese pacifism, written into Japanese constitution in the aftermath of WW2.
Japan is a densely populated and mountainous island nation with little arable/habitable land and scarce natural resources. It is thus natural that Japan would alternate between periods of isolationism and expansionism. China is a large and diverse entity that also alternates between periods of disunity and weakness, and strong central power. When China is strong, it naturally seeks to exert influence in its near-abroad. Thus conflict and tension between China and Japan is inevitable.
Whilst the West may consider Chinese actions in the East China Sea and South China Sea as "belligerent" and "bullying", the Chinese public is actually frustrated with the perceived weakness of Chinese foreign policy with regards to territorial disputes and the protection of Chinese citizens overseas. A popular political satire sums it up like this (translation unfortunately loses some of the poetic elegance)...
America: I'll attack whoever I want to attack.
Britain: I'll attack whoever the Americans attack.
North Korea: I'll attack South Korea no matter who attacks me.
South Korea: I'll hold military exercises with the USA.
I see where you're coming from, I've visited Changi Prison in Singapore and seen the Burma railway. Japanese war crimes were beyond comprehension. The union of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was probably the most brutal and insane unholy alliance of modern history.
Your right in that Germany has tried very hard to put the past behind it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't have any doubts they've succeeded. While here a few days ago, Shinzō Abe did apologize to parliament for the crimes of the past but that's very very rare for the Japanese. I've also seen a lot of their questioning the ethical issues their war crimes brought about. While I have no doubt ALL sides committed crimes, hell the allies flattened most of Europe, we shot prisoners, killed civilians and used nuclear weapons on two cities filled with civilians, BUT, we did what we had to do to survive. Because if we didn't we wouldn't be sitting here today. My family line would have ended defending our home from the Japanese.
I know all about what the Japanese did to China, it was compulsory learning during my education and probably some of the most horrific reading there is. I can COMPLETELY understand why the Chinese would be antsy with the current turn of events.
Personally, I think closer ties with China would be far more beneficial to Australia's future then closer ties to Japan. 24.6% of Australia's exports go to China. Granted Japan is a close second at 16.7%. China is rapidly becoming the world power. I would hate to be at odds in the future.
I suppose this turn of events was, as you say, inevitable. My fiancee and I were discussing whether the U.S. may one day return to a more isolationist outlook, circa 1935. I highly doubt it but it would be an interesting turn of events.
What are your thoughts on the future of China? Chinese state media is a little. . . biased? The U.S. media is even worse. It's REALLY hard to get accurate first hand information from people that actually live in the country these days. So it's really awesome to have someone who knows. So, thank you VERY much for the opportunity!
@Heindrich Your popular political satire made me laugh...
This bit...
Britain: I'll attack whoever the Americans attack.
I think the idea that Britain enjoys reliving the days of its imperial glory by travelling with its powerful mate America and bashing the bad guys, is frankly getting a little old hat.
When it comes to war, putting people on the ground, getting aid... The British political system is quick, dynamic and actually quite scary for system that normally has numerous checks and safeguards. The will of the PM can send an army somewhere immediately (because they will have got ready before the politicians even started talking!) if he gets the go ahead from the majority of the elected house.
Much quicker than America. Which is bigger and grander in all ways. But like an oil tanker, slower in the decision making.
Britain decides in most cases to go to war, because America will back them if they do, is a far more truthful state of affairs. Britain states its intent, America then does. Tony Blair stated this a lot when he was accused of making Britain americas lapdog.
The conflict in syria is a case in point. The PM asked the house to land troops and give air support. He was denied. Surprise surprise, America, and no other nation has stepped in either... Even though lives of civilians are lost on a daily basis and has caused the largest displacement of people since WW2.
So... not sure what I'm trying to say. But it made me laugh anyway.
@Corvino don't forget in 1977 we went to war with Iceland. I believe we are the only country to have declared war on it. Something to be proud of?
@Anduin Just having a quick perusal, the U.S. Military organization is so horribly bloody complicated. They do have a bloody good quick reaction force but they can only be used if the situation is dire and requires about 90 million approvals from every politician, his family, his pets and their tennis partners.
British military structure is far more centralized.
Organized through the Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, London. They are responsible for planning, coordination and execution of overseas operations. It is not responsible for protecting sovereign waters or anything nuclear, nor is it involved in NATO article V. So one would assume you have another department for that.
But this is by far a more efficiently designed system. However, you have a much smaller area to cover and a smaller more compact and efficient military that looks to be designed to respond quickly to smaller conflicts. In the event of full mobilization command and control always gets a bit hairy and you'll have HQ and command units materializing out of every orifice country wide. However, been a long time since there's been a large scale full deployment.
The U.K. had around 40 000 if I recall in Iraq during the invasion phase, which is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure if they activated additional command and control for that or it just stayed with the JPHQ and went down the chain.
Anyway, getting side tracked by the awesomeness. :P
(As a P.S. - British soldiers have the most WICKED sense of humour. Love it!)
Don't kid yourself, the U.S. Military does so much without needing a formal declaration of war from Congress that such a vote is all but useless.
The United States has not officially declared war against anyone since....1942, when we formally declared war against Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Ever since then, any and all military actions we have undertaken have been at the behest of the United Nations (such as Korea in the early 50s, Lebanon in the late 70s, Iraq in the early 90s, or Bosnia in the mid-90s) or "sneaky underhanded tricks" like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (which ramped up our involvement in Vietnam or the joint AUMF resolutions which got us stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq where we still are to this day. None of those military actions have been constitutional, according to strict constructionism and, in my opinion, rational thought.
@jackjack Oh hell yea, although, on paper. Which everyone ignores anyway. How routinely does your government do whatever it pleases?
A hell of a lot more than it should, which is another way of saying "whenever it feels like it". Spy on innocent civilians? Sure, why not. Kill people via drone who may not be guilty of anything except being a young male in the wrong country? *shrug* Sure, why not. Declare an open-ended War on Terror and give ourselves the authority to strike at any target, anywhere in the world, whenever we feel like it, with the flimsy justification of "be vewy qwiet--we're hunting terrorists!"? *shrug* Sure, why not.
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing here, either, because both parties are guilty of this nonsense. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight.
Not really sure. Is this the Cod Wars/ Third Cod War that is being discussed?
We had three wars over cod?
@Mathsorcerer never knew that! I think there's a big difference from a country declaring war and actual military action. That American soldiers see a lot of.
Another promise, another scene, Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed, And all the green belts wrapped around our minds, And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
What are your thoughts on the future of China? Chinese state media is a little. . . biased? The U.S. media is even worse. It's REALLY hard to get accurate first hand information from people that actually live in the country these days. So it's really awesome to have someone who knows. So, thank you VERY much for the opportunity!
@CaloNord Before your arrival in these forums, I was the "politics guy" So I have touched on some of the topics before in old comments. I dug them up rather than repeating them.
The past few decades have been miraculous, economically speaking, but China faces some very serious internal and external challenges in the coming decades. A good proportion of western experts (China Bears) like Stratfor predict some sort of major crisis will derail the rise of China, possibly leading to the fall of the Communist Party and a return to fragmentation and weakness. However, China is in unchartered waters, and the other western experts (China Bulls) expect some kind of "Chinese Exceptionalism" to continue to defy western models of growth and development, and come to dominate the 21st Century as an economic, and in the future, military, superpower. Both sides of the argument can point to plenty of reasonably sensible evidence to support their hypothesis.
So, the answer is "I don't know", but I suspect neither of the above will come to pass. China is in a state of flux, developing and evolving at an incredible speed. There are so many unknowns, so many variables, that it is impossible to confidently predict the future. China's "Centrally Planned Hyper-Capitalism" is untested and unprecedented, and it remains to be seen if the Communist government can smoothly make the transition from a low-tech, low-cost export economy to a high-tech, high income consumer economy. It remains to be seen if future US administrations will keep its "eyes on the ball" and contain China even more aggressively. It remains to be seen if the Communist Party can get a grip on rampant official corruption and increasing social inequality that feeds the exact kind of resentment and discontent that toppled the Nationalist Government and brought the Communists to power.
Currently Parliament is on a Summer Recess, so these laws won't really be debated. The European Court ruling was 3 months ago, so these laws could have been debated and voted through at the time. But weren't.
But it is really hard work for a politician to take all those donations from corporate lobbyists so that the politician can sponsor pre-written legislation that skews the rules in favor of the corporate donor. That sort of grueling lifestyle just drains you so a luxurious vacation where you still get paid is required.
Convincing. . . "Say Tony, we've had THREE days of work this month! We deserve a break . . . Say a fortnight off on a pacific island populated by tall blonde women? All at the tax payers expense of course!"
By the way! @Heindrich Your comment on the "Which alignment are you" Thread was very insightful. I share your opinion about the world rather rapidly westernizing and I fear the loss of some of the worlds most vibrant and ancient cultures. ( I was however very fond of the Firefly blend of western and Chinese, I liked the concept that writing in Chinese was considered civilized, many people spoke bits and pieces of Chinese and ate Chinese food. The blending was much better then just having the culture overrun. )
Globalization has been both a boon and a curse all at once.
Not really sure. Is this the Cod Wars/ Third Cod War that is being discussed?
We had three wars over cod?
@Mathsorcerer never knew that! I think there's a big difference from a country declaring war and actual military action. That American soldiers see a lot of.
Pretty much. Also don't feel so bad about the cod wars. Canada had the Turbot War.
@Heindrich I don't know if I could disagree with the first perspective you offered on Japan/China relations any more.
I don't buy the argument that because many years ago a Japanese government that has not existed in over half a century did some bad things, that the modern Japanese government has no right to create a system of self defense that does not rely on allied powers (notably, the United States)
There are atrocities in the past of virtually every nation. If you are going to compare Japan with China, then in recent history you'd see that China has been far, far, far more aggressive than Japan.
It was not Japan who backed North Korea to invade the South in 1950. The Chinese government, along with the Soviets, did and created a political catastrophe that even today divides a nation in half and allowed one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history to take power for multiple generations.
The Chinese government is also a very big threat to self determination. Historians agree that denying self-rule to populations was one of the primary causes of both World Wars, yet the Chinese government shows absolutely zero regard for calls by Taiwanese and Tibetan peoples for independence. In fact they are so opposed to the Taiwanese determining their own fate that the NPC has passed Anti-Secession Laws that threaten military action if Taiwan was even to formally vote for independence.
Honestly, I think it is nothing short of fear-mongering for the Chinese government, who controls the largest standing army in terms of man power, the world's third greatest navy and a nuclear arsenal to insinuate that somehow its people should fear a nation whose military has not been allowed to leave its borders since 1948. Japan has no nuclear weapons. They have the smallest navy of any economic superpower. Their Self Defense Force has only been deployed abroad as part of peace-keeping missions at the behest of the United Nations.
I really can't see how Japan can be seen as a threat to anyone, especially due to the horrible, but half-century old, crimes of a government that is now extinct.
All the politicians slagged off the strikers. Not one discussed the reasons for the strike. The strikers themselves got no air time to fully discuss their views...
Currently Parliament is on a Summer Recess, so these laws won't really be debated. The European Court ruling was 3 months ago, so these laws could have been debated and voted through at the time. But weren't.
/facepalm
"Mr Cameron said: "We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al Shabab in East Africa."
Well if Jimmy Savile (how many cases is it alleged at this point? 450) is any indication maybe they should try actually keeping an open ear and talking to victims instead of sweeping it under the rug. I realize this all happened under various governments, but given how many people were willfully blind about it while he was alive I find it hard to believe that the issue is that they don't have enough ability to snoop to address the particular type of crime I'm talking about.
Also sorry in advance for any double posts. The forum is acting weird for me. It seems like anything I post doesn't register.
Comments
This is one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy. Politics in most democracies is no longer about political ideology, but rather how to "play the game of politics", say whatever voters want to hear now and make excuses later.
The other fundamental problem, at the heart of the West's debt crisis, is the issue of "inter-generational conflict", where the voters and stakeholders of tomorrow's society has no say in today's elections. For decades governments have had no rational reason to slash spending and hike taxes, or better regulate the financial services industry, to rein in the looming crisis, because they would have been voted out at the very next election by voters who wanted "better services TODAY and lower taxes NOW". Why invest in a project that won't pay off in 20 years when I won't be around to reap the political reward? When my party probably won't even be in power?
In contrast, China's single-party rule allowed the Communist Party to essentially sacrifice a generation's welfare by keeping wages artificially low whilst the government and the growing business elite made a fortune to enrich themselves and also invest for the future, because the Communist Party plans as if it expects to still be in charge in 2050.
When you study politics academically, you realise that no political system and no political ideology is perfect. I personally would like votes to be restricted to those who have had a reasonable degree of education in the subject, which should be part of your civic duty, such that elections should be a national debate about the merits of Liberty vs Equality, and ideologies such as Libertarianism, Socialism etc... Of course such a system raises questions about "who would provide the education?", "what if I am too poor or incapable of accessing this education?" and "I pay my taxes, I am a stakeholder in society, yet I cannot vote beause I do not want to study politics?"... etc
As for the ethics of free movement of labour - yes, ideally we should have a fully trained stock of candidates for every job within the country. But we often don't. From my experience there are many jobs that UK candidates won't touch, and not just jobs at the minimum wage. In my own industry UK graduates will not consider working in mid-sized provincial towns. Jobs in major cities are oversubscribed but smaller centres rely heavily on overseas recruitment to fill rotas, and I've ended up working alongside very capable Spanish, Greek, Polish and Dutch colleagues. (As well as African, Indian, Pakistani and Filipino folks, but we're discussing Europe)
My joke about the UK having annoyed just about every country in the world was a joke, but has a nugget of truth in it. This year is the first time in a century we've not been at war somewhere in the world. In the past 100 years Great Britain/the UK has been at war with (deep breath): Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire, Germany, Bulgaria, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Ireland, The Dervish state in Somalia, Iraq, Zionist forces in Palestine, Italy, Japan, Croatia, Romania, Finland, Thailand, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Vietnam, Communist rebels in Malaysia, North Korea and China, Egypt, Argentina, paramilitaries in Cyprus, Yemen, Syria, the Bosnian Serb Republic, Liberia and Sierra Leonean rebels. Many of them more than once. That's a lot of countries where we've killed people within living memory.
Britain undeniably has power. And I am proud to come from a country that produced visionaries like Newton, Darwin, Brunel, Turing and so on. But internationally we are stronger and more powerful as part of Europe than alone. The EU needs reform, and that could be achieved if out politicians actually pushed for it coherently.
The EU currently says NO to democracy. Lets wrangle some more and add an ammendment, we don't need to have people vote on it. The president has to be rigged and put in by other politicians. And sod the odd one who actually stands up and actually listen to what the voters wanted. (Big respect to the hungarian pm)
I want out of union and I want in a USE.
1) As a Chinese person keenly aware of history. (biased, but a bias that matters when it is how 1.3bn Chinese people think).
Japan is an aggressive and dangerous country that has attempted to invade China the only two times in history when it felt stronger than China. (1937-45 and 1592-98) The Chinese people endured decades of unimaginable suffering under Japanese aggression in the 20th Century, including 20-30 million deaths during the "War of Resistance Against Japan", when the Imperial Japanese Army carried out unforgiveable atrocities including mass killings, rape, biological weapons testing. (Google Rape of Nanking, Three Alls Policy, Comfort Women and Unit 731 for details.)
Unlike Germany, which has genuinely atoned for Nazi war crimes in WW2 and where Holocaust denial is illegal, Japan still has a shrine in Tokyo that venerates convicted war criminals and right-wing mainstream Japanese politicians (including current governing party) regularly question Japanese culpability and the extent of war crimes in WW2.
Thus the re-militarisation of a Japan that does not recognise the lessons of history is a sad and dangerous development for peace and stability in the Asia and beyond. The Chinese government must do more to enhance our military capability, defend our national interests and ensure the tragedies of the 20th Century can never be repeated.
2) As a student of International Politics and the School of Realism
The re-militarisation of Japan is an inevitable consequence of the rise of China and the relative decline of the United States as Japan's guarantor of national security.
Tension and conflict between the incumbent hegemony and a rapidly rising power is all but inevitable. The United States would naturally attempt to constrain Chinese ambitions through relaxing its constraints on Japanese pacifism, written into Japanese constitution in the aftermath of WW2.
Japan is a densely populated and mountainous island nation with little arable/habitable land and scarce natural resources. It is thus natural that Japan would alternate between periods of isolationism and expansionism. China is a large and diverse entity that also alternates between periods of disunity and weakness, and strong central power. When China is strong, it naturally seeks to exert influence in its near-abroad. Thus conflict and tension between China and Japan is inevitable.
Whilst the West may consider Chinese actions in the East China Sea and South China Sea as "belligerent" and "bullying", the Chinese public is actually frustrated with the perceived weakness of Chinese foreign policy with regards to territorial disputes and the protection of Chinese citizens overseas. A popular political satire sums it up like this (translation unfortunately loses some of the poetic elegance)...
America: I'll attack whoever I want to attack.
Britain: I'll attack whoever the Americans attack.
North Korea: I'll attack South Korea no matter who attacks me.
South Korea: I'll hold military exercises with the USA.
Russia: I'll attack whoever that insults me.
China: I'll insult whoever that attacks me.
I see where you're coming from, I've visited Changi Prison in Singapore and seen the Burma railway.
Japanese war crimes were beyond comprehension. The union of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was probably the most brutal and insane unholy alliance of modern history.
Your right in that Germany has tried very hard to put the past behind it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't have any doubts they've succeeded. While here a few days ago, Shinzō Abe did apologize to parliament for the crimes of the past but that's very very rare for the Japanese. I've also seen a lot of their questioning the ethical issues their war crimes brought about. While I have no doubt ALL sides committed crimes, hell the allies flattened most of Europe, we shot prisoners, killed civilians and used nuclear weapons on two cities filled with civilians, BUT, we did what we had to do to survive. Because if we didn't we wouldn't be sitting here today. My family line would have ended defending our home from the Japanese.
I know all about what the Japanese did to China, it was compulsory learning during my education and probably some of the most horrific reading there is. I can COMPLETELY understand why the Chinese would be antsy with the current turn of events.
Personally, I think closer ties with China would be far more beneficial to Australia's future then closer ties to Japan. 24.6% of Australia's exports go to China. Granted Japan is a close second at 16.7%. China is rapidly becoming the world power. I would hate to be at odds in the future.
I suppose this turn of events was, as you say, inevitable. My fiancee and I were discussing whether the U.S. may one day return to a more isolationist outlook, circa 1935. I highly doubt it but it would be an interesting turn of events.
What are your thoughts on the future of China? Chinese state media is a little. . . biased? The U.S. media is even worse. It's REALLY hard to get accurate first hand information from people that actually live in the country these days. So it's really awesome to have someone who knows. So, thank you VERY much for the opportunity!
This bit...
Britain: I'll attack whoever the Americans attack.
I think the idea that Britain enjoys reliving the days of its imperial glory by travelling with its powerful mate America and bashing the bad guys, is frankly getting a little old hat.
When it comes to war, putting people on the ground, getting aid... The British political system is quick, dynamic and actually quite scary for system that normally has numerous checks and safeguards. The will of the PM can send an army somewhere immediately (because they will have got ready before the politicians even started talking!) if he gets the go ahead from the majority of the elected house.
Much quicker than America. Which is bigger and grander in all ways. But like an oil tanker, slower in the decision making.
Britain decides in most cases to go to war, because America will back them if they do, is a far more truthful state of affairs. Britain states its intent, America then does. Tony Blair stated this a lot when he was accused of making Britain americas lapdog.
The conflict in syria is a case in point. The PM asked the house to land troops and give air support. He was denied. Surprise surprise, America, and no other nation has stepped in either... Even though lives of civilians are lost on a daily basis and has caused the largest displacement of people since WW2.
So... not sure what I'm trying to say. But it made me laugh anyway.
@Corvino don't forget in 1977 we went to war with Iceland. I believe we are the only country to have declared war on it. Something to be proud of?
British military structure is far more centralized.
Organized through the Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, London. They are responsible for planning, coordination and execution of overseas operations. It is not responsible for protecting sovereign waters or anything nuclear, nor is it involved in NATO article V.
So one would assume you have another department for that.
But this is by far a more efficiently designed system. However, you have a much smaller area to cover and a smaller more compact and efficient military that looks to be designed to respond quickly to smaller conflicts. In the event of full mobilization command and control always gets a bit hairy and you'll have HQ and command units materializing out of every orifice country wide. However, been a long time since there's been a large scale full deployment.
The U.K. had around 40 000 if I recall in Iraq during the invasion phase, which is pretty impressive, but I'm not sure if they activated additional command and control for that or it just stayed with the JPHQ and went down the chain.
Anyway, getting side tracked by the awesomeness. :P
(As a P.S. - British soldiers have the most WICKED sense of humour. Love it!)
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing here, either, because both parties are guilty of this nonsense. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight.
@Mathsorcerer never knew that! I think there's a big difference from a country declaring war and actual military action. That American soldiers see a lot of.
Another promise, another scene,
Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed,
And all the green belts wrapped around our minds,
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
Before your arrival in these forums, I was the "politics guy"
My basic political views/instincts and personal background:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/361384/#Comment_361384
My views on media and journalism:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/361643/#Comment_361643
The previous "politics thread" on this forum, albeit with a focus on International Politics as opposed to domestic.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/30532/wars-and-politics/p1
Finally my thoughts on the future of China...
The past few decades have been miraculous, economically speaking, but China faces some very serious internal and external challenges in the coming decades. A good proportion of western experts (China Bears) like Stratfor predict some sort of major crisis will derail the rise of China, possibly leading to the fall of the Communist Party and a return to fragmentation and weakness. However, China is in unchartered waters, and the other western experts (China Bulls) expect some kind of "Chinese Exceptionalism" to continue to defy western models of growth and development, and come to dominate the 21st Century as an economic, and in the future, military, superpower. Both sides of the argument can point to plenty of reasonably sensible evidence to support their hypothesis.
So, the answer is "I don't know", but I suspect neither of the above will come to pass. China is in a state of flux, developing and evolving at an incredible speed. There are so many unknowns, so many variables, that it is impossible to confidently predict the future. China's "Centrally Planned Hyper-Capitalism" is untested and unprecedented, and it remains to be seen if the Communist government can smoothly make the transition from a low-tech, low-cost export economy to a high-tech, high income consumer economy. It remains to be seen if future US administrations will keep its "eyes on the ball" and contain China even more aggressively. It remains to be seen if the Communist Party can get a grip on rampant official corruption and increasing social inequality that feeds the exact kind of resentment and discontent that toppled the Nationalist Government and brought the Communists to power.
We live in interesting times...
Currently Parliament is on a Summer Recess, so these laws won't really be debated. The European Court ruling was 3 months ago, so these laws could have been debated and voted through at the time. But weren't.
/facepalm
I WILL get to some serious issues a little later. I'm coding at the moment and only halfheartedly paying attention! :P
By the way! @Heindrich Your comment on the "Which alignment are you" Thread was very insightful. I share your opinion about the world rather rapidly westernizing and I fear the loss of some of the worlds most vibrant and ancient cultures. ( I was however very fond of the Firefly blend of western and Chinese, I liked the concept that writing in Chinese was considered civilized, many people spoke bits and pieces of Chinese and ate Chinese food. The blending was much better then just having the culture overrun. )
Globalization has been both a boon and a curse all at once.
They do less damage that way!
I don't buy the argument that because many years ago a Japanese government that has not existed in over half a century did some bad things, that the modern Japanese government has no right to create a system of self defense that does not rely on allied powers (notably, the United States)
There are atrocities in the past of virtually every nation. If you are going to compare Japan with China, then in recent history you'd see that China has been far, far, far more aggressive than Japan.
It was not Japan who backed North Korea to invade the South in 1950. The Chinese government, along with the Soviets, did and created a political catastrophe that even today divides a nation in half and allowed one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history to take power for multiple generations.
The Chinese government is also a very big threat to self determination. Historians agree that denying self-rule to populations was one of the primary causes of both World Wars, yet the Chinese government shows absolutely zero regard for calls by Taiwanese and Tibetan peoples for independence. In fact they are so opposed to the Taiwanese determining their own fate that the NPC has passed Anti-Secession Laws that threaten military action if Taiwan was even to formally vote for independence.
Honestly, I think it is nothing short of fear-mongering for the Chinese government, who controls the largest standing army in terms of man power, the world's third greatest navy and a nuclear arsenal to insinuate that somehow its people should fear a nation whose military has not been allowed to leave its borders since 1948. Japan has no nuclear weapons. They have the smallest navy of any economic superpower. Their Self Defense Force has only been deployed abroad as part of peace-keeping missions at the behest of the United Nations.
I really can't see how Japan can be seen as a threat to anyone, especially due to the horrible, but half-century old, crimes of a government that is now extinct.
All the politicians slagged off the strikers. Not one discussed the reasons for the strike. The strikers themselves got no air time to fully discuss their views...
B*rstools ! ! !
Well if Jimmy Savile (how many cases is it alleged at this point? 450) is any indication maybe they should try actually keeping an open ear and talking to victims instead of sweeping it under the rug. I realize this all happened under various governments, but given how many people were willfully blind about it while he was alive I find it hard to believe that the issue is that they don't have enough ability to snoop to address the particular type of crime I'm talking about.
Also sorry in advance for any double posts. The forum is acting weird for me. It seems like anything I post doesn't register.