> 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.
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.