Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hunden
I agree with Mr. Boot on much of this and I certainly think it is one of the more solid pieces that I have seen in a long while on China, although I don't agree on the trade angle.

In the case of Japan, that means supporting a move to amend the MacArthur-era constitution which makes it difficult to send the Self-Defense Forces abroad (including for the defense of Taiwan or South Korea) and a more recent political decree that caps military spending at 1 percent of GDP.

I think that Japan would be better served both to formally revise Article 9 and to increase its military budget from around $50 billion per year to more like $100 billion.

As to Mr. Boot's "The British tried confrontation with Germany (symbolized by the 1904 Anglo-French Entente Cordiale and an Anglo-German naval arms race) and appeasement with Japan (the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance and considerable aid for the Imperial Japanese Navy until the late 1920s)", I am not so sure that "appeasement" is the word that I would have chosen since the British-Japanese relationship of the early 20th century seems to me to have been more solid than that.

5 posted on 10/03/2005 3:37:25 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: snowsislander

Agreed. The Royal Navy wasn't "appeasing Japan". It was shoring up a threat to Russia and so maintaining the balance of the five powers.


6 posted on 10/03/2005 4:29:58 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson