The Japanese people voted out a bunch of the politicians who were trying to remilitarize japan in order to check or confront NK and China directly.

For Reference:
'Japan: "Oh, We Back!"'
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=450603

As the above thread demonstrates, it's common for Americans project their own feelings and political views onto foreign politics. Many mistook political efforts as popular efforts and believed that the japs were all about remilitarizing in order to check NK and China.

Yesterday the chickens came home to roost.

"Japan's PM accepts 'utter defeat'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6920842.stm
This is a stronger rebuke than what Bush got in the most recent elections. In Japan, typically the prime minister resigns if he loses control of a chamber. This is the first time the losing party (LDP) hasn't controlled that chamber of their parliament in 50 years. The party that won are Japan's centrists-liberals, who are antiwar in a country that is popularly and constitutionally antiwar (vs the LDP, who were slightly less antiwar).

This throws a wrench into the plans of dreamers who see Japan unifying with the US on its asian foreign policy. Turns out the japanese people have different incentives.

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/29/2007 1:43:04 PM

Except it had next to nothing to do with militarizing. It was all about government corruption and stupidity. The govt lost over 50 million pension funds and has just had fuck up after fuck up.

7/29/2007 1:48:28 PM

Just like how the dems winning had nothing to do with Iraq .

You missed the point, anyway -- confronting NK and China with the US aren't priorities for the japs. The militarist cause isn't going anywhere, now, with the DPJ cockblocking.

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM. Reason : hkj]

7/29/2007 1:55:31 PM

But you just stated that it was a priority. I'm stating that it's a non-issue. Sure, the majority of the japanese people don't want the constitution changed and they don't want a war with anyone, but that can be said of Americans too.

7/29/2007 6:36:23 PM

Before you put words in my mouth, what exactly did I state was a priority and where?

Your point that there were other reasons that they got booted out only reinforces my point that the election results were a referendum on the pro-militarization movement. The referendum said that militarization is not a national priority ("Turns out the japanese people have different incentives"), as many Americans had perceived just a year ago.

Low prioritization and outright rejection are the same since something that is low priority can get preempted at any time, which is exactly what happened in these elections.

Quote :

"Sure, the majority of the japanese people don't want the constitution changed and they don't want a war with anyone, but that can be said of Americans too."

Short memory? The point is that we did, in fact, believe that they wanted to change their constitution and adopt more hawkish stances against china and NK.

7/29/2007 7:38:23 PM

Quote :

"You missed the point, anyway -- confronting NK and China with the US aren't priorities for the japs. The militarist cause isn't going anywhere, now, with the DPJ cockblocking."

I think that is complete bulls*** honestly for you to take a Japanese political result as a rebuke of American politics, it is very self-centered and takes into zero account anything outside of the debate on the Japanese military and their purpose. I know there are some Japanese people on here cause I discuss Formula One with one of them. And they're more knowledgeable than myself or you on Japanese politics, so unless they pipe up and agree with your sentiments, you're full of s***.

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 8:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2007 7:59:07 PM

So, through all that frothing, I gather that your argument is "you're full of ****."



P.S. Most of us here are grownups and can write "shit"



Familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy -- Appeal to misleading authority : http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 8:09 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/29/2007 8:04:49 PM

^ You're more than welcome to write s***, and I'm more than welcome to say what you're writing is s***, and I'm more than welcome to think it's nonsense and discount it due to the Bill O'Reilly/DailyKos Rule.

It's called the internet. (And I prefer to show some sense of decorum in what I type.)

Bill O'Reilly/DailyKos Rule: where people think every event in the world justifies their personal opinions. It's similar to where if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2007 8:21:04 PM

I see 2 posts of blabbering from you but zero posts presenting an actual argument that is relevant to the thread.

Come back when you can make a grownup, logical argument on the topic.

7/29/2007 8:53:05 PM

Quote :

" Short memory? The point is that we did, in fact, believe that they wanted to change their constitution and adopt more hawkish stances against china and NK."

Don't mistake 'you believed' with 'we believed.' When I was in school in Japan there was ONE teacher in the law faculty that supported changing the constitution, and even that one professor said it would not be changed. Don't mistake politicians rantings with popular sentiment. Japanese opinion polls have consistently been against amending the constitution.

7/29/2007 8:59:41 PM

Quote :

"Your point that there were other reasons that they got booted out only reinforces my point that the election results were a referendum on the pro-militarization movement. "

Your point is wrong and your logic skills are very poor. Corruption and mismanagement were the overriding issues in this election. Prime Minister Abe and his liberal democratic party are hardly the ultra-nationalist warhawks that you make them out to be. Although Abe has urged an active defense in response to North Korean missiles being fired into the Sea of Japan, his stance differs very little from that of the Democratic Party of Japan.

The election was a referendum on the management capabilities of the Liberal Democratic party in wake of the pension scandal, nothing more.

7/29/2007 9:08:19 PM

Quote :

"I see 2 posts of blabbering from you but zero posts presenting an actual argument that is relevant to the thread. Come back when you can make a grownup, logical argument on the topic."

My logical argument is that you read an article about Japanese election results. You knew about the leading party's stance and debate on military previously. You took the election result to legitimize your argument in your head that the Japanese people did not support Japanese military expansion. Your assumption that the election defeat signaled that the Japanese people did not support the leading party's desired military expansion has nothing to deal with people that actually voted in the election, and is instead your opinion that you came with before reading election results and you took them to legitimize your opinion because you're suffering from tunnelvision and you refuse to think there could be possibly be another outcome other than the one you came up with.

There are other parties that hold seats other than LDP and DPJ. All parties except DPJ lost seats, even parties that are more anti-military than DPJ, and yet they lost seats as well.

Here's the best Japanese politics source in English I could find (and has done it since 2004) that explains the issues of the elections: http://observingjapan.blogspot.com/2007/07/desperate-to-end.html

Quote :

"In fact, as AEI's Chris Griffin observes in an altogether sensible op-ed at the Washington Post, one reason why foreign policy is not a major point of contention in this election is that the differences between the LDP and the DPJ tend to be more a matter of degree than of kind. Unlike the differences between the LDP and the JSP during the cold war, when the JSP refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the US-Japan alliance and the constitutionality of the JSDF, the LDP and the DPJ largely agree on Japan's playing a more significant global role, with differing degrees of emphasis on the US versus the UN, for example. The overlap between the LDP and the DPJ also applies to North Korea and China policy, although the DPJ may not view the abductions issue in the same light that Prime Minister Abe does (discussed in this post). Writes Griffin: A vote against the LDP, however, is not a vote against the U.S.-Japan alliance. While many within the opposition party leadership may be skeptical of Abe's ambitions, they have chosen to focus the their campaign on such social issues as pension reform. So a defeat for Abe does not necessarily mean a repudiation of his agenda of constitutional reform and a stronger defense. And while Abe has made a stronger alliance a priority, both parties seek a healthy relationship with the United States. (Griffin also questions the political wisdom of the timing of Congress's vote on the comfort women resolution, now scheduled for Monday, 30 July, even as he praises the resolution's "sentiments." Given that the vote will not be held until Tuesday Japan time, two days after the Upper House elections, I fail to see what the problem is. And if Japan has a problem with the vote being held so close to the elections, it has only itself to blame, given that at each step in the process Japanese officials and commentators have aggravated members of Congress, culminating in Ambassador Kato's letter to congressional leaders.) Nevertheless, Sunday's election will not result in a drastic shift in policy, heightened rhetoric notwithstanding. If Abe survives, chastened, he will be ever more beholden to party leaders, not least among them former Prime Minister Mori — who took initial steps to placate the DPJ by appealing to the national interest, suggesting that there are many areas in which the DPJ and the LDP to cooperate following a DPJ victory, and that the parties should embrace a politics "for Japan." A chastened Abe more dependent on senior party leaders will be a more cautious Abe, ever more disinclined to pursue Koizumi-style structural reform. There will be efforts to calm rural voters, perhaps a new welfare initiative or two stemming from cooperation with the DPJ, and less talk of constitution revision, with the latter even more likely to vanish from the agenda in the event of Abe's being replaced by Fukuda or another less flashy candidate. But it is an open question whether a cautious approach will be enough to calm the restive voters and undermine the momentum that the DPJ will take from the election in the event of an impressive victory."

So the bottom line is that, yes the LDP, is welcome to change on increasing the country's military, but pretty much, the DPJ believes the same thing. And that's from a person who has put down a lot of ink on observing Japanese politics.

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2007 9:45:43 PM

im a mirror your glue what sticks to you bounces off me

7/29/2007 9:52:11 PM

Quote :

"if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

thats a beauty.

7/30/2007 2:52:42 PM

^ Thats one of the few things that my father said that I ever repeat.

That and "Get off the damn shed!"

7/30/2007 2:58:52 PM

Let me take these in turn.

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: Don't mistake 'you believed' with 'we believed.' When I was in school in Japan there was ONE teacher in the law faculty that supported changing the constitution, and even that one professor said it would not be changed. Don't mistake politicians rantings with popular sentiment. Japanese opinion polls have consistently been against amending the constitution."

"We" means most of us Americans, as demonstrated in the original thread I quoted and have referenced several times:

Quote :

"For Reference: 'Japan: "Oh, We Back!"' http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=450603"

You are lost in this thread, so I'll spell it out again: American perception of Japanese policy was wrong (see old thread), as evidenced by the recent election results. Providing examples of how American perception of Japanese policy was wrong does not refute my argument that American perception of Japanese policy was wrong.


[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM. Reason : df]

7/30/2007 7:13:05 PM

Toyota and Honda is already making real efforts to radically improve gas efficiency and find new technologies. They realized that they don't need to militarize the taking of oil.

[/thread]

7/30/2007 7:53:52 PM

Quote :

"Except it had next to nothing to do with militarizing. It was all about government corruption and stupidity. The govt lost over 50 million pension funds and has just had fuck up after fuck up."

7/30/2007 8:30:25 PM

dear citizens, since WWII, we've had an unbelievably strong Keynsian cycle because we don't spend a shitload on our militatry. but lets go ahead and change all that now!

[/election]

7/30/2007 8:45:45 PM

^ the past 20 years or so, Japanese economy has had significant downturns that have more or less coincided with the US and Europe.

...

but what i don't get is that the LDP just got their ass handed to them, and lost their ruling majority ... but the PM said he wont step down? Is that right?

now i probably didn't read it carefully, but i'm too lazy to go back and sift through the details. can someone explain that to me?

7/31/2007 1:35:09 AM

LDP still controls the house that votes in the PM, if I understand correctly.

7/31/2007 1:45:41 AM

^^He's a stubborn dickhead - aka their version of Bush

And their standard of living probably would have suffered more if they had to spend more on defense. They have used the savings on some nice things such as universal healthcare or undertaking huge ass public works projects out in the middle of nowhere.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 1:48 AM. Reason : jkl]

7/31/2007 1:48:23 AM

^^ ah, okay. that explains it. i figured i missed something.

^ oh, okay. thanks for way oversimplifying an extremely complex dynamic of history and economics.

7/31/2007 2:01:34 AM

Roll your eyes and wave your hands all you want, sweetie pie, the consensus of economic literature on Japan agrees that they have benefited from free riding on our defense.


NCSU even offers a decent economics course on the topic, if book learnin' doesn't scare you too much.

7/31/2007 2:14:24 AM

Japan does spend a significant amount of money on the JSDF, in fact they rank #5 in the world for military spending. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.html

That being said, if American troops weren't there they'd probably be #2.

7/31/2007 7:20:51 AM