So, Cain, was I just talking out my ass, or....

[East Coast Hustle]

...am I essentially correct that the chances of China and Japan ending up in a shooting war over the Senkakus are just about zero? I just spent some time telling one of my more unfortunately impressionable friends on FB exactly that, and that she needn't worry over some silly article in the Telegraph prophesying a 3rd world war breaking out over Chinese territorial claims in surrounding waters. Then I decided that I don't actually KNOW that, it's just what I'm deducing using logic and logic is not always the best framework for dissecting international relations.

Thoughts?

[Cain]

It's pretty low, yeah.  Both Japan and China seem at a point where they are basically whispering to the US about how the other is a big, mean and nasty poopyhead, and how they're glad the USA isn't like that, trying to leverage the US as a strategic wedge against the other.  Obama is either entirely clueless about this and unsure how to respond, or has wisely decided the best course is to let each vent their bile and let them get it out of their system.

And when China did get genuinely offended at some statement by the Japanese PM, there was a lot of abject back-pedaling in Tokyo.

The Japanese also had a former PM go over to China to apologize for war crimes, before this incident.  So while they may talk up a decent game, fundamentally the Japanese haven't got the backbone for picking a fight with China.

And the Telegraph has always been good at prophesizing the end of the world, inbetween reporting on what MI6 would like everyone else to believe about the world. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Word.

That's pretty much what I figured, nice to hear it from a more informed source. Thanks.

[Cain]

Not a problem, a second opinion is always a nice thing to have.

I mean, it is "worrying", but it's worrying in the sense that "the US condemns the Syrian raid on a Turkish village suspected of habouring rebels as a "worrying developement" in the ongoing Syrian civil war" kind of thing.  Something to keep an eye on, and not exactly wonderful news, but nothing to lose your shit over.

I also think if the Japanese play their hand too hard with the US, they're going to undermine their own credentials as the staging ground for the American "pivot" into the Pacific, as they clearly can't handle their shit without American diplomatic and military backing, and possibly undermine US plans for the region, which revolve around encircling China while pretending it's not, and not pointlessly antagonising them.  And of course China has no good reason to push Japan and America closer together with reckless action, either.  Everyone's best interests are in mutual cooperation and profit, and only a few fringe nutters, like the Republican Party and Chinese and Japanese nationalists, think otherwise.

[insideout]

US plans for the region, which revolve around encircling China while pretending it's not, and not pointlessly antagonising them.

So the US is playing Go with China on a worldwide scale while pretending it's not?  That certainly fits, but I hadn't thought of it in those terms before.

You inspire the conspiracy theorist side of me, Cain.

[Cain]

Pretty much.  The State Department calls it "congagement", a mix of engagement and containment.

It's a bloody stupid word, but a fairly sensible policy. 

[Elder Iptuous]

That is very likely my least favorite portmanteau ever.   

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah, that is a stupid word. Chillax and staycation have a better ring to it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, that is a stupid word. Chillax and staycation have a better ring to it.

Those are fucking stupid too.  Just saying.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah, that is a stupid word. Chillax and staycation have a better ring to it.

Those are fucking stupid too.  Just saying.

That's the point of my post.

[Elder Iptuous]

those, at least, roll off the tongue better, even though they are both portmantarded.

Roger, i thought you were opposed to 'just saying'?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

those, at least, roll off the tongue better, even though they are both portmantarded.

Roger, i thought you were opposed to 'just saying'?

Nope.  Unless it's used to be passive aggressive towards a person.

In reference to things that aren't people, it's fine.

"Those words are dumb.  Just saying."

"You don't seem very educated.  Just saying."

The difference is small, but real.

[Elder Iptuous]

got it.  and agreed.
hm... the term seems to me to be a defense, to imply "what i said could be interpreted as a challenge, but i don't intend to argue about it"
which perfectly fits the context you lay out.
hadn't really thought about it until this point.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

got it.  and agreed.
hm... the term seems to me to be a defense, to imply "what i said could be interpreted as a challenge, but i don't intend to argue about it"
which perfectly fits the context you lay out.
hadn't really thought about it until this point.

Well, that's the distinction.  When used in reference to a thing, I take it as "Not important enough to fight over".

When used in reference to a person it's passive-aggressive bullshit, a method of sniping.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

got it.  and agreed.
hm... the term seems to me to be a defense, to imply "what i said could be interpreted as a challenge, but i don't intend to argue about it"
which perfectly fits the context you lay out.
hadn't really thought about it until this point.

Well, that's the distinction.  When used in reference to a thing, I take it as "Not important enough to fight over".

When used in reference to a person it's passive-aggressive bullshit, a method of sniping.

Never really sonsidered that, but yeah. Exactly.