Certain outlets aren't clearly reporting but manipulating by paid actors. It's nowhere near the truth. Not even 50% of it.
> I really don't know as I haven't looked into it much; that's mostly speculation on my part.
And I'll stop there. That's 99% of your post. Ungrounded facts. Misguided claims.
You claim you have studied history and maybe that's your bias. History was a long time ago. Back then United Kingdom, i.e. The Great Britain ruled the world too. Are we going to go on about that? The world changed. History doesn't apply. Stop talking about it. So your view of Asians might be old.
It's also just sampling bias. You go to 1 place. See a few "Asians" and it represents a whole continent?
Following your logic I go to 1 restaurant and will claim all American food is terrible based on it.
> That's irrelevant.
You're just blinded and misguided. The end.
> Do you think there's anything that Japan can do without the allowance of the US?
Yes. Iran can do what they want without the allowance of the US. The consequence is military action broke out. But they can. So why can't Japan? All the same. You're mixing logic up.
> Conclusion: don't dismiss any source outright, but evaluate them carefully.
Point them out with your - apparently non-media - sources which prove otherwise.
> You claim you have studied history
You'll have to also point out where I made such a claim. And I'm pretty sure my view of Asians isn't old, as I still communicate with some regularly.
This isn't about going "to 1 place". This is about doing deep related research (secondary sources) over several years and the results of said research for the most part agreeing with experience with and words of the primary sources (those I interacted with over several years). Your restaurant comparison doesn't fly at all.
> So why can't Japan? All the same.
You have everything there. Read the points again. Try to follow the flow; it isn't that hard. I don't see how you can say a country where the US has had continuous military presence for decades and a country where they were afraid/would be ill-advised to send in ground troops are "same" in this context.
> I don't see how you can say a country where the US has had continuous military presence for decades and a country where they were afraid/would be ill-advised to send in ground troops are "same" in this context.
It is the "same". Every country is in striking distance or you can move troops over.
You're speaking like Napoleon or someone? More history lessons? What troops?
These days you can nuke or bomb most places easily. Aircraft carriers, drones, etc. The US has strategic bases everywhere. Inside or outside. No difference. You're 90% arguing over semantics that sound nice on paper. Not so in reality.
Get on with the times.
> And I'm pretty sure my view of Asians isn't old, as I still communicate with some regularly.
That doesn't make it not old. If I speak to my grandfather that never changed for 20 years that's still regularly AND old.
It's not. There are different costs - political, logistical, etc. There would be a very high cost if US troops went into Iran, or just if the war were to continue. Note there are still issues and Iran can/will still close the strait whenever they feel slighted. There's almost no cost if the US wanted to influence Japan as they're already inside.
And it seems you're also against history. So no media for current affairs, and no history for contextualizing current state of affairs. Again, what are your sources for your arguments? So far it's like you're pulling everything out of thin air, with zero support or even basic logic.
Also it wouldn't behoove you to look into Asian attitudes to social interaction, although it'll be difficult if you don't spend some time communicating with some of them, and nigh on impossible if you completely dismiss the history that shaped what is today.
> There's almost no cost if the US wanted to influence Japan as they're already inside.
Then why did Japan need a tariff? That's a cost. If it was as you say you won't need it.
> although it'll be difficult if you don't spend some time communicating with some of them
How do you know I don't? Your problem is your conclusions are all superficial. This includes your continued generalization.
> And it seems you're also against history.
I'm not against history. You've just applied it wrong. History says the Asian you speak so much about has had just as much wars and internal conflicts as you can imagine. So how can you conclude they work together as a social contract. Maybe on the surface.
What is this about and how does it relate to the context here?
> How do you know I don't?
I never made a conclusion whether you do or don't. I only said it'd be difficult to draw an accurate picture if you don't.
> So how can you conclude they work together as a social contract.
It's something that has been studied for decades, and found to continually hold generally (despite increasing Western influence). Here are a few links to help you along in your discovery of Asian collectivist attitudes:
Please, if you're going to continue this, provide decent sources and/or logical reasoning to advance your arguments. Going around in circles is tedious.
Certain outlets aren't clearly reporting but manipulating by paid actors. It's nowhere near the truth. Not even 50% of it.
> I really don't know as I haven't looked into it much; that's mostly speculation on my part.
And I'll stop there. That's 99% of your post. Ungrounded facts. Misguided claims.
You claim you have studied history and maybe that's your bias. History was a long time ago. Back then United Kingdom, i.e. The Great Britain ruled the world too. Are we going to go on about that? The world changed. History doesn't apply. Stop talking about it. So your view of Asians might be old.
It's also just sampling bias. You go to 1 place. See a few "Asians" and it represents a whole continent?
Following your logic I go to 1 restaurant and will claim all American food is terrible based on it.
> That's irrelevant.
You're just blinded and misguided. The end.
> Do you think there's anything that Japan can do without the allowance of the US?
Yes. Iran can do what they want without the allowance of the US. The consequence is military action broke out. But they can. So why can't Japan? All the same. You're mixing logic up.
> Conclusion: don't dismiss any source outright, but evaluate them carefully.
Which you failed to do.