For now, be thankful that the socialists did not get their way, and that the US base in Okinawa will remain open.
I love how the liberals over at the AP conduct their “hard news” stories. They announce one time that the political party trying to kick the US base off of Okinawa is the Social Democrat Party (outwardly socialist, entitlement, redistributionist, one-world governance supporters across the world). Then for the rest of the report they refer to the Japanese US-demilitarization constituency as simply “Democrats”. I guess you can get annoyed with both interpretations of the inaccuracy.
I would have been happy with just accurate wording, “Social Democrats”, or even “socialist” – to distinguish that political movement from what Westerners have known for hundreds of years as the Democrat party (although since Jimmy Carter the US Democrat party has increasingly adopted Social Democrat policies).
It’s a well known fact that the primary threat to start WW3 is a Chinese power play to grab Taiwan into the Communist fold. Search the net for “Assassin’s Mace” scenarios and you will find a slew of info.
My question is whether or not the Social Democrats understand that removal of the US base in Okinawa will accelerate the WW3 scenario by removing a key deterrent towards Chinese aggression. Do these socialists want to accelerate WW3 in the bid for one-world governance, or are they just martially ignorant? Evolutionary socialists have only ever been comfortable with the military might of communist nations – although disagreeing with the way that Lenin, Mao, and Stalin pursued the Marxist utopia – they view the revolutionary socialists as allies. On the flip side, all socialists have hated military power in the hands of non-socialists.
I guess the relevance to me is how advanced and valid the worldwide socialist network has become in their strategy. Are these just the ramblings of a long-held faith and socialist policy? Or do they really know what they’re doing in inspiring communist military aggression?
Leave a Reply