Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "PolyMatter" channel.

  1.  @PrograError  I don't think that's fair to Japan's current society to assume it will just...revert.
    84
  2.  @jjw3046  That's a simplification because the culture is radically different; I agree that Japan whitewashes much of their history, and that's bad - but that's not the same as having and excusing a militaristic society that endorses imperialism again. You even mentioned it in your post; certain elements in the Japanese government are TRYING to revoke Article 9...while China is being aggressive right next door! The culture of living peacefully has been so ingrained that it has yet to actually be removed in a time of rising tensions. Yet you act like this pacifism means it will become fascism in a dime?
    79
  3. You're kinda missing West Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Belgium, and arguably France and the UK.
    52
  4. ​ @ribaldi  Literally every nation went through that period, from the US to the modern Chinese empire
    49
  5.  @mojabaka  You don't need to be an American to recognize an obviius geopolitical reality. Only countries under a geopolitical sphere has the ability to NOT have a military. Costa Rica happens to he under the US one. Everyone knows an invasion of any country in the Americas comes with the addendum of a US fleet interfering.
    40
  6.  @jjw3046  These echoes are very much only similar in face value. First of all, it wasn't just certain ruling elements; it was the literal military itself that went ahead and started the invasion of Manchuria with the overall government being unaware of it. The militarists framed it as serving the Emperor away from "decadent Western" institutions like the Parliament; and were only able to do it by portraying Japan as the victim of a coalition of Western powers. The current modern history of Japan makes that claim much more difficult to pursue, and the military is now, unlike back then, purely in the hands of the government and has been so for many generations. It's also no longer under the control of leaders that were hellbent on Samurai beliefs of honor over all. In short, the main contributions to the rise of Imperial Japan are just...not quite there. Yeah, and the fact that this is in regards to Japan having the ability to HAVE a proper military is the point. It's not like this is an even split between dissolving the Parliament at all; yes Japan fucked up in the past, but that should NOT be held against them many generations into the future. You're using a slippery slope fallacy right now. Well, 'peace idiot' is popular for a reason. I don't see why it's a good idea for Japan to constrain itself in the face of a resurgent and aggressive China. What are they to do? Wait until China starts blockading their trade routes? Wait and pray the US will always be around to help while it faces isolationist feelings at home? I am all for grilling Japan's need to whitewash their prior leaders; but that does NOT mean that it's doomed to fall into the same trap as before. Especially when the circumstances are MUCH different than prior, and Japan has democratic allies to look to instead of delude itself into thinking it needs an empire to cleanse Asia of Western influence.
    28
  7.  @justanotherfrenchie  America is prolly the most reliable country on the planet, funny enough. Literally huge swaths of countries rely exclusively on the US for their security.
    27
  8.  @mojabaka  It is, but virtue of its position, it can take advantage of the US need to secure its defenses from foreign outsiders by leveraging US support in case of an invasion. It is independent, of course; just using its geopolitics to ita advantage similar to countries like Norway.
    26
  9. It's literally BECAUSE the US is interventionist that Japan has the ability to not have a military at all, genius
    21
  10.  @mnm1273  The US literally risks WW3 for small allies all the damn time. Russia and China consistently complain about it.
    15
  11.  @paddy9738  The American government has only really broken binding treaties if it perceives the enemy as a barbarian; which it did the Native Americans. The US has not broken any binding treaty these days, let alone defensive agreements.
    14
  12.  @fakeninja4447  US is still in the Middle East; and staying in a specific area indefinitely for no gain is stupid. US defense agreements are essentially the perfect shield; which is why no one violates them.
    14
  13.  @chriscarlone527  First of all, the US forced itself on Germany more than South Korea; South Korea requested US aid, and the US bombed Germany down since it was at war with it. What matters isn't how the US got there, its whether the US "nation-builded", which it did in all the cases I mentioned.
    13
  14.  @meganoobbg3387  You obviously haven't seen the death toll the Taliban took. Guerilla warfare is kinda hard when you're trying not to kill random civilians too, ya know? But in open warfare between countries, the US just destroys its opponents entirely. So yes, like the Taliban were devastated until they went underground. Unless the US plans to occupy China, it stands literally no chance. But you'd know that, if you ever read.
    10
  15.  @justanotherfrenchie  I don't really watch either, but you are obviously kinda ignorant on the matter. I did look at Afghanistan and South Vietnam; and the US helping out as long as they did IS proof of how reliable it is. The US was not allied with either countries, but promised to help and did; that does NOT mean it has to help indefinitely otherwise its unreliable. Literally no country goes that far. The US acts according to its geopolitical goals. A French dude crying about imperialism is hilarious when its prolly the last imperialist state in the West atm; the US actually tries to nation-build and improve the states it invades; France just keeps them into the dirt like their puppets in West Africa. The entire reason Iraq went to shit was because the Iraqi government demanded that the US forces leave far too early before the country was ready. The US did, respecting the democratic decision; and then ISIS came by and shredded up the country. Now the US is back, despite having left in the first place out of respect of the Iraqi people's decision. Fucking FRANCE asked the US forces to leave when it had zero leverage to do so, and could have easily been overthrown if the US wanted to, and it did. The Philippines asked some US forces to leave, and it did, leading to China screwing with them, but that's another topic. So basically; you literally have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, this sounds like projection; France literally never leaves willingly if it could, unlike the US.
    10
  16.  @meganoobbg3387  Kinda. Your lives are not as critical as American lives to the US, but that doesn't mean Americans won't die for it. Also, the best part is that it prevents any aggressive nation from actually considering it. Which is the overall point. Russia would have never attacked Ukraine if it actually had a defensive treaty with the US; which is why Central/Eastern Europe keeps requesting more US troops to begin with. It works quite well. Russia and China are essentially stuck for options lest they invite devastation in the form of war with the US.
    8
  17.  @justanotherfrenchie  Trump didn't break any binding international agreements, though. Actually, maybe the Iran deal was binding, but he really did have some leeway with Iran since Iran like NK constantly thumbs its noses at such agreements. The US has never abandoned an actual ally. The US has helped and left many groups; but none of them were actual allies. The Kurds, the Afghans, and the Vietnamese were not allies; but people used the word for lack of a better term. People all over the world don't give a shit about what happened in Afghanistan, just like they don't give a shit about genocide in Sudan or elsewhere. The times they DO give a shit is when policy emerges and affects the international stage. US allies barring the likes of France and Germany who were already seeking of a way to push the EU into the US' place have not changed and are not concerned in policy of the US leaving Afghanistan. Biden withdrawing did affect his approval rating, but only in how messy it seemed. The reality was that he couldn't really do anything because the Afghan national forces literally collapsed the second the US began to withdraw. Expecting the US to fight and die for people who fold the second it leaves is the height of stupidity, and I actually applaud the action. Except the US doesn't abandon its allies nor backstab them to begin with. If you're gonna use an example, don't use what amounts to client groups. Turkey is an ally. France is an ally. UK is an ally. Japan is an ally. Kurds, Afghans, Iraqis, Sauds, and Vietnamese? They were NOT at any point allies with treaty obligations.
    7
  18. It depends on the demand of their currencies. Many countries can simply print more until people perceive the currency losing its worth; then it becomes a serious issue. The US Dollar can do this pretty much indefinitely due to its widespread use, for example. The Yen is pretty trusted too. The Yuan is becoming more widespread, but its trust is questionable, I'm not too sure about it actually.
    6
  19.  @dzane243  Westerners are negative ablut everything, genius. That's why there is so much self-criticism in regards to everything. The East gets a fraction of criticism lobbied that Western nations apply to themselves. Fact is that HSR makes no sense for short travels in terms of operating cost. Which points to massive corruption issues that China pretends it doesn't have.
    6
  20.  @232Invoker  Psht, Americans love their children. They give them everything. They give them too much and they expect the world and then reality smacks them in the face, either leaving them bitter that the world isn't perfect or they hide away. Americans need to hate their children again. :D
    5
  21.  @champan250  I literally just told you the lie that AJ+ referenced, and you unironically are acting like its an "inconvenient truth"? What? I just gave an example of a lie. Guamese WANT to be a part of the US, but don't want to be a part of the State structure since they'd have to give up their property under Federal law. This goes for AM Samoa too, btw. How about you actually reference the referendums that occurred? Or talk about the human rights reports on them? You know; stuff that ARE NOT infected by government/state propaganda meant to tell you lies? I wasn't actually talking about Hong Kong, I was referencing the Uyghurs and Tibet. Human Rights Watch has already made several statements about the abhorrent treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China, and have called it a "cultural genocide" with literal internment camps. Not a literal genocide like some have exaggerated, but still something abhorrent in the modern day...which AJ just flat-out ignores and sometimes dismisses. I literally don't give a flying fuck what China claims the reason is. The fact of the matter is that China is oppressing an ENTIRE community because...some MIGHT be a part of ISIS??? What, is it okay if Americans start putting Chinese into "re-education camps" because they MIGHT be selling technology information to China? No, right? Everyone has work to do with human rights, but Jesus Christ; cultural genocide and re-education camps is DISGUSTING for the modern era. And here you are, a disgusting human being, rationalizing it. Find some humanity in your heart. You have lost it somewhere along the way.
    5
  22.  @jkjkjk100  You do realize studying abroad is just that, right? It's the case for all people studying abroad that they return home like 99% of the time. I'm talking about immigration. And I am 100% right that far more Chinese immigrate to the US than vice-versa. Are you really arguing that because a minority has a super rich ecample that they're not oppressed? For God's sakes, even in the 18th century there were wealthy Blacks in places like the US and Haiti, even in the midst of slavery. This is what people talk ablut when they complain that China is behind socially; online commentators use arguments that have long been debunked in terms of social progress. A single example of success doesn't detract from the majority example of oppression as spoken about by groups like Human Rights Watch.
    5
  23.  @jkjkjk100  What are you talking about? Human Rights Watch literally always talks about the US. Human Rights Watch doesn't talk about stuff prior to its inception, genius; it talks about human rights violations NOW. I hope you realize that such criticisms doesn't make it at all true, right? Becuase Human Rights Watch literally has far more to talk about the US than it does China, not because China doesn't have more human rights violations, but because the US has free media and thus HRW has more to talk about. But this is absurd; by your logic literally NOTHING can criticize China because "someone said that they're influenced by the US". For the record, HRW doesn't accept any money from the US Government; which makes it INFINITELY more trustworthy than anything China or the US says. "From 2005 to 2015, among the top 10 countries or economies of foreign citizenship for U.S. doctorate recipients with temporary visas, there were substantial differences in the percentage intending to stay in the United States. Approximately 9 in 10 doctorates from Iran (92%), India (88%), and China (87%), planned to remain in the United States after graduation. With the exception of Thailand (28%), the remaining top countries had stay rates ranging from 50% to 65%, and the overall stay rate for all countries other than these top 10 was 64%(figure C)." So apparently I was wrong for taking your word that Chinese students return to China. You were doubly wrong for assuming more Chinese return to China. I'll take Human Rights Watch which is literally THE most trustworthy source on human rights on the planet over your claim. Once upon a time there were US Blacks in the past that claimed that the US wasn't oppressive during Segregation in the 1940's. That doesn't make it true. US put ETIM on a terrorist group because of politics in the first place. China asked for it in return for ignoring US wars in the Middle East to justify oppression. Another just criticism of the US is that it ignores oppression of people when it's focused on politics; but thankfully in this specific case it has ended. You sound just like the white people that argued that they were "civilizing" Native Americans, again, disgusting.
    5
  24.  @Kongajinken  Ok chill out now. The US may be doing CR a favor, but its to its own benefit as well. Having neighbors that trust it keeps conflicts far from US borders.
    4
  25.  @mnm1273  Did you not see the literal quote I sent you? There was no actual written obligation to send military aid if conflict emerged; which is why Ukraine isn't mad at the US and is actively seeking to join NATO instead of distrusting US treaty promises. The only one to break the memorandum was Russia, who literally stole territory from Ukraine; but not because it waged war.
    4
  26. @Benjamin Figgins An absurd statement when when the US occupied Japan it was while China was not controlled by the CCP, and most of the last few decades prior to 2018 had the US bending over for the CCP after it worked together against the USSR. Like, this is such a prideful ignorance that I'm astounded. Especially since you utterly dismissed the Japanese view of this at all. Hell, even the Chinese view, which would NOT appreciate Japan re-militarizing and getting nuclear weapons if the US stopped backing them.
    4
  27.  @Falcodrin  An unnecessary war that got Americans killed. If Americans weren't dying, the public wouldn't have cared; not that that's something against them. That's generally the case for all peoples. Your point about your grandpa really doesn't contradict anything I said. It was the suffering of US soldiers that brought the backlash, not the suffering of random Vietnamese people. If that were the case, then the information that the vast majority of suffering was inflicted by North Vietnam would have galvanized them to step in further. It didn't, because suffering brought on by others doesn't matter, and the suffering of others doesn't matter; what matters is that THEIR boys were suffering for no discernable reason.
    4
  28.  @jkjkjk100  "Much more developed". There are issues in many nations, and China most assuredly isn't more developed by any metric on Western standards. It's very behind on key social, economic, and human rights issues. Only a Han Chinese can enjoy China more than the US since they're the majority and thus not suffering from state repression as much. Even then, far more Chinese move to the US than vice-versa.
    4
  29.  @memberberry5898  You're seriously meshing 2 different ideas to make your politics make sense. There is a MASSIVE difference between massive migration/colonization and immigration. The former is what happened to the Roman Empire with the Germanic peoples, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Yugoslavia. The latter is perfectly fine and safe and has built the more powerful states the world has ever seen. One is a numbers game where the new peoples don't give up their cultures and identities and form new nations and break away when they have a chance, born from a disconnect to the nation they ostensibly exist in but don't care about since it wasn't there choice to be there. The other is where numerous peoples take part in a new culture and in their terms become a part of its network and culture and become a powerful boon. One is to be avoided and suppressed (illegal immigration) and the other is to be encouraged. By your logic, France should've collapsed long ago. France is made up of many different groups even before immigration from Africa. The Britons, Aquitaine, and many other groups that make up France became French willingly and made it more powerful than it would've been if they advocated for "only French, bro!". Beating back a fucking invasion is not racist and xenophobic, but framing legal immigration and shifting demographics that are not caused by literal invasions 100% is. So yeah, if you're doing that, you're pretty gross, bruh.
    4
  30.  @europeansovietunion7372  The US isn't known for that tendency at all, tho. The US has always honored its defensive pacts. Unless your definition of "betrayal" includes "not bending over for the whims of allied nations screwing your interest" anyway.
    4
  31.  @meganoobbg3387  At no point has the US ever wanted to conquer Russia, wtf are you on about? And spending trillions of dollars on a new advanced fighter is about the standard.
    3
  32.  @mangaartist1995  I'll fully admit that this is my POV from a country that Japan can never threaten, so I fully understand if other countries; especially those who have a history with Japanese imperialism, are more wary. I don't think the US would allow Japan to fall like that, but I can still understand former victims being less than impressed with Japan's efforts to recognize its past actions.
    3
  33.  @champan250  Al Jazeera actually does to China what it does to Qatar. Ignore the worst issues by only looking at SOME of China's issues. It tends to focus far more on Western stuff, some of which are straight lies to people that know thw facts on the ground. My buddy is US Guamese and stopped watching AJ+ when they did their hit piece on the US on how Guam should be independent, saying that they were spreading propaganda and essentially pushing for the loss of their land. Which turned out to be a common trend with AJ+. Progressive criticism tinged with lies, but only at the US. Everyone else get moderate Conservative softballs.
    3
  34.  @champan250  A buddy of mine did. Told me all about it while he was in NY.
    3
  35.  @Falcodrin  Looking at it, your comment actually kinda proved my point. Your entire response was filled from the POV of American action, from Americans doing bad stuff to Vietnamese civilians. Trying to act like backlash was due to that. But, like, you don't actually give a shit. If you did, you'd note that Vietnamese civilians suffered far more from Vietnamese soldiers; but there was no backlash born from that, and you never bothered to mention it. Because it doesn't matter to you since Americans had nothing to do with it. People can literally get butchered and you'd be fine with it as long as the Americans aren't involved. Which is my entire point; you have zero actual empathy for the situation, and just want to the US to not be involved. You don't give a shit about lives outside of the US. And hey, that's A-OK. That's pretty much everyone else too. But don't try and play the moral purity test game; you kinda look bad when put into perspective.
    3
  36. ​@???????? Fact is that even the countries with the best child friendly policies aren't seeing any sharp rises in child rearing. People just don't want children.
    3
  37.  @drpepper3838  European powers constantly "don't do what usa says", so you're only asserting something ludicrous. Or more likely; Anti-American propaganda. Seriously, of all the places in the world that bitch and moan about the US doing whatever it wants, it can't be in Europe who consistently thumb their noses at the US for their own interests. The US couldn't get them united on Iran, Europe is split in half on how to respond to Russia with many in Western Europe somehow acting like the US purposefully is stoking tensions with Russia, certain Western European powers specifically aim to stoke Anti-US tensions for their agenda in the EU cough France cough and now European powers are thinking of taxing US tech for shits and giggles. And that isn't even getting into the shitshow that was the European empires and their actions during the Cold War and how the US did NOT appreciate Marshall aid money being used for that endeavor while the US was trying to NOT seem like a pro-imperialist power. Hell, most of the world doesn't do what the US wants and they don't get anything either. The only countries that DO get threatened are those that specifically seek to screw US allies and geopolitical goals, at least Post-Cold War. The EU is not a united entity and nobody actually trusts the EU to do anything; which is why the US is there, smart one. You do not speak for the Netherlands, and you most certainly speak for Europe. Fact is that when Russia came knocking into a European state and harrassing Central European countries, it was the US that responded, not the EU; and if the EU ever did respond it was either lackluster OR occurred after the US ever did. Believe it or not, people trust the US to act in their defense, not the EU.
    3
  38.  @drpepper3838  I mean, you do; not because you're unable, but because you're unwilling. The point of defense is to make it so that no one will ever consider attacking you in the first place. It's a deterrent. The Netherlands itself isn't under threat, but no one trusts the EU to act if Russia sent little green men into Latvia, or Estonia, or Poland; claiming it was "local Russians rebelling against brutal Russophobic rule" or something. Western Europeans have a bad habit of expecting Central Europe to just "deal with it" while not really believing Russia would risk it...when Russia totally would since Putin totally would and Russian civilians don't have a say. France is indeed a nuclear power, but it would never use nukes against Russia even if an invasion occurred in those countries I mentioned; because France itself isn't under threat. But US troops being fired on with US nukes close by? That is a clear escalation if it occurs; which is why Russia doesn't dare raise the stakes. "usa doesn't really care about its allies anyway, only its own profits" That's literally everyone, you weirdo. That includes your country which gleefully takes advantage of US security for its own ends, not because it loves us oh so much. Your precious France that bitched and moaned about the Australia nuclear sub deal was also gleefully fleecing its ally for more money, and it was AUSTRALIA that sought a better deal by approaching the UK. The US was a part of the process to make UK nuclear subs (technology sharing) so the US was a tertiary part in this and had NO OBLIGATION to stop this. Being an ally doesn't mean bending over for France, as much as France obviously believes that. It's also fucked Italy for their own profits, and behind China is the biggest hacked which steals US tech, and tried to sell Russia ships at the same time as Russia was attacking a European country. France is a vile hypocrite when it comes to this topic, and explosively bitched about this in order to further its EU federalization agenda. I don't mind the EU federalization stuff; but France trying to stoke populist Anti-Americanism by portraying this as a portrayal which the US orchestrated is BEYOND fucked up. It makes me wonder why the US even bother supporting France in West Africa and Libya. If France really feels that way, then there's no reason to keep supplying French troops in their deployments anymore.
    3
  39.  @meganoobbg3387  Unless the US has a literal treaty with another country which it has betrayed, then the US' conduct with treaties is guaranteed. Working and aligning with other countries in the down low does NOT mean the US must stick its neck out for them. Are you actually drunk enough to act like Russia was ever an ally to the US Post-USSR?
    2
  40.  @sxli3340  Not richer yet. NYC is still the richest city on the planet, currently.
    2
  41.  @kmsg816  This is a hard sell, mostly because this sounds like asking someone else for the right to self-defense; but I understand where it's coming from. Though this honestly does sound like a specifically Korean thing, since I don't actually hear much from other countries in the area barring China being THAT antsy about Japanese re-armament. I agree all the way that Japanese leaders need to recognize the sins committed by their government in WW2, but idk if it can truly be tied into the literal defense of a nation. That's just way too critical of a national prerogative and can be construed as an attempt of control. I think this idea comes from a genuine place to bring closure, but it's a delicate thing. And the last thing Japanese nationalists need is a concerted effort from other democracies to tie those in together, framing it as a conspiracy against Japan. I'm A-OK with South Korea still grilling Japan on this, it's their right as another free nation, but I'd be uncomfortable with the US leveraging its influence in something like this. It smells of a superpower abusing its power on allied nations and violating sovereignty. It's a difficult subject, to be sure.
    2
  42.  @PEK-97  Name once where either CNN or BBC intentionally or actually "maliciously manipulated" interview footages to distort the meaning of words. I'm curious.
    2
  43.  @champan250  If you look at the referendum results of Guam, it's kinda obvious whose opinion was "one sample size" in reality. But AJ+ won't tell you that for "some" reaosn.
    2
  44.  @louisd6410  Human Rights Watch being funded by multiple, even hundreds of private donors isn't an issue; how else are they supposed to function? The issue is when they're funded by governments and thus have to follow government policies. And HRW isn't funded by NED at all.
    2
  45.  @ComanderSazabi2000  Very fair; and it's respectable that that's what you seek over dick measuring contests. I salute you, good sir.
    2
  46.  @mnm1273  In that very same link you provided; "The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][19] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[18] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms." Ignorance and arrogance are bad bedfellows indeed. Defense treaties are BINDING agreements which DEMAND a military response. Usually the provision of "an attack on one is to be treated as an attack on them". There was no such provision in the Budapest Memorandum. Very much unlike Japan's treaty with the US.
    2
  47.  @overdose8329  Plazw Accords didn't destroy anything; Japanese economy was going to burst regardless. You might wanna actually look up what it did, this is a stupid myth. Propping up South Korea doesn't mean doing it against Japan, wtf?
    2
  48.  @jr-wv4qw  Why the hell does someone deserve to be "finished off" for a silly opinion? Legal immigration by pretty much all metrics is a good thing and is preserving the West from this demographic trap. Meanwhile East Asian nations that refuse legal immigration will crash into it and stutter long before robotics come into play.
    2
  49.  @johnroberts8233  Late Roman Empire had millions of armed tribesmen who paid lip service to Rome occupy Roman lands that refused to serve the state as anything but vassals. Armed foreigners within the empire owning vast swaths of Roman land. That doesn't even mention the economic spiral that Rome was in, the constant massive wars it were embroiled in, massive depopulation, etc. Where the hell is the US in such a state? Oh, it's at "war" but seriously, you people need a reality check.
    2
  50.  @Tom_Cruise_Missile  You don't need to be a right-winger to know that that's a stupid claim. First of all, what you mean to say is "illegal immigrants", not migrants. They have no legal right in the US. And you also mean to say that they're depressing low wages even more since they send much of their money to Mexico where the US $ is much stronger and you get more money for it than the US. The US' agricultural industry is not "built off" of illegal immigrant labor, its dependent on them due to cheapness, and it shouldn't be since it fucks American low-wage earners in the Mid-West and South. But hey, since you seem to be a left-winger, I'm sure you'll tell me why the US, one of the literally hardest working nations on Earth NEEDS illegal slave labor to function, won't you?
    2