South Korea and Japan are prime examples of vassal states. They have autonomy until their autonomy is a problem. They literally depend on a super-power's military on their land to keep them safe. If a country's economic and security wellbeing depends on another country then all policy making is subject to that other country's influence making it an indirect vassal state -- what I think is best called a neo-colony where domestic business is left alone but anything affecting geopolitics and foreign policy is far from an autonomous decision.

> Iran wants nukes to further destabilising and terrorise the ME. NK wants nukes to keep it's nation sized prison under total control.

Yes, and I don't support either nation one bit but they are a sovreign state and the very fact that you and many others in the west show support for overturning their government means your democratically elected governments are using their power and influence to turn them into neo-colonies by dictating their domestic activity as if they answer to you. We can hate bad governments all we want but if a nation is truly sovreign our opinions as outsiders shouldn't mean anything. A government's prime directive is to preserve sovreignity over its land and people which is why it can send soldiers to death to preserve these things. What is lacking from your disapproval of NK and Iran is an acknowledgement that they do not answer to you , your government or any other nation. You speak of Iran destabilizing ME fully knowing what the west has been doing there for over a century. At least Iran has security and religious ties to its neighbors. A sovreign nation has self-determination, they get to have horrible leaders and dictators, famines and civil wars as they do great leasers, prosperity and peace all of which is determined by the people whether through elections or violence.

"At least we don't export revolutions" is the primary selling point of the CCP in africa and other places which is working wildly.

I applauded NK and Iran because they preserved their sovreignity but I do hope their own people cause a change in regime but ultimately it is their country. The US has no business in NK vs SK conflict so I can't support that, but Iran is helping hezbollah which is a security risk for US and in that respect alone I support any type of aggression against them.

I agree with almost everything you said.

But fyi, the only reason hezbollah exists is because Israel occupied south lebanon for 20 years. They and other resistance group took all the help they can get to eventually get rid of the occupiers.

Some Shias initially welcomed the israelis to get rid of the PLO believe it or not.

That is true, Iran views Shia people as their own. But hezbollah exists because of the lebanese civil war, they are a legit political party there in the power sharing regime. Even without israel there will be Christians and Sunnis in Lebanon to share power with Shias.

It's a bit glib to suggest that Japan and Korea are 'vassal states' because they partner with other nations towards mutual self defence.

Belarus is a vassal of Russia, Japan is not a vassal of the US or NATO.

It's also wrong to suggest that 'nations influence one another' as some kind of nefarious thing. Big countries with more people are naturally going to have more economic power, that's a universal issue, it doesn't mean that sovereignty is ceded.

"you and many others in the west show support for overturning their government means your democratically elected governments are using their power and influence to turn them into neo-colonies by dictating their domestic activity as if they answer to you"

This kind of rhetoric is better off on Reddit. You have no idea what I think, or what I support and none of that can be inferred from my comment.

"What is lacking from your disapproval of NK and Iran is an acknowledgement that they do not answer to you"

Piling on bad assumptions of others intentions don't make your case. Or any case.

Nowhere in my rhetoric did I suggest these states need to be 'answerable to anyone' let alone 'me'.

"I applauded NK and Iran because they preserved their sovreignity"

??? 'North Korea' is not 'sovereign'. 'Kim Jong-Un' is.

Only a wayward moral compass caught up in technical pedantry would 'applaud' the ruthless and totalitarian subjugation of millions of people to something worse than slavery as some kind of positive thing 'because sovereignty'. 'Sovereignty' should be a distant concern at that point. Who gives a crap about 'sovereignty' in the context of 'Kim Jong-Un'? It's almost irreleavnt.

"The US has no business in NK vs SK conflict so I can't support that"

Who cares what you support?

What do you think the people of S. Korea want?

The intervention in S. Korea was a UN mission - a broadly plural effort to help defend South Koreans from a fairly totalitarian North.

South Koreans are very glad to have the support of Americans (and others by the way, who fought in the 1950's and would come to their aid again).

You're ranting on about 'sovereignty' but implying that the US has 'no business in S. Korea' even at the behest of South Koreans? 'Because you don't support it'?

Just step back from the keyboard for a few years. Active young minds start learning about the world and various so-called injustices have a difficult time putting them into context. There is a such thing a 'good' and 'moral'.

> Belarus is a vassal of Russia, Japan is not a vassal of the US or NATO.

Very curious as to how you make that distinction. Both Belarus and Japan claim to be sovreign states and officially both are making decisions on their own, because they believe in it. If China and US fight over Taiwan, do you think Japan will not help the US like Belarus is helping Russia against Ukraine?

> It's also wrong to suggest that 'nations influence one another' as some kind of nefarious thing.

Nefarious or not is not the point, ability to say "no" is. If a nation cannot say "no" without risking the security and economic viability of its nation then it is not a sovreign state because in order to function at the most basic level it depends on another state.

> You have no idea what I think, or what I support and none of that can be inferred from my comment.

You are right. Apologies for the presumption.

> ??? 'North Korea' is not 'sovereign'. 'Kim Jong-Un' is.

Huh? What are you talking about? Only democratic nations are sovreign? The Kim family rules NK much like how the Queen england rules over the UK and the commonwealth (technically royal assent is required for passing laws there). No country considers NK Kim's property but it is recognized as a sovreign state, if one of his generals has a coup tomorrow it will still be the same sovreign nation.

> Only a wayward moral compass caught up in technical pedantry would 'applaud' the ruthless and totalitarian subjugation of millions of people to something worse than slavery as some kind of positive thing 'because sovereignty'.

There you have it. The mindset of the modern neo-colonialist. Your moral values and form of government are superior. Where did I mention my support for their domesti actions? I can have an opinion it but in this context their domestic actions have no bearing on their sovreignity. Their rulers, regardless of your opinion of them have a fundamental duty to protect their nation's sovreignity and I applaud them getting nukes to preserve that. Much like how I applaud France for gettinng nukes after WW2 or the Viet Kong for resisting US lead efforts to tamper with their internal conflict -- they resisted neo-colonialism because they already suffered from fench colonialism, I dislike communists but if I were vietnamese, a communist is better than a western puppet that is not a result of national self-determination.

> Who cares what you support?

Umm.. I do, I get to clarify my support and views so readers don't confuse my opinion with support of the subject of the topic.

> What do you think the people of S. Korea want?

None of my business. If they want a sovreign nation however, they need to self-determine and get whatever form of government they want. I don't get to have a say in that.

> The intervention in S. Korea was a UN mission - a broadly plural effort to help defend South Koreans from a fairly totalitarian North.

No, the war was a US/western effort. The peacekeeping mission after the cease-fire is a UN effort.

> South Koreans are very glad to have the support of Americans (and others by the way, who fought in the 1950's and would come to their aid again).

Why does that matter? Again with the neo-colonialist mindset. Your superior form of government which is democratic is best and as such, if you believe the people of a nation want something then by all means let the CIA and US mil interfere even though the US has no direct security concern there. Does that sum it up? And people wonder why the CIA exports revolutions and the US mil invades a country every 15-20 years!

> You're ranting on about 'sovereignty' but implying that the US has 'no business in S. Korea' even at the behest of South Koreans? 'Because you don't support it'?

Nope, because the US MIL/IC is there to protect americans not SK. The only time their security is a concern is if they are a neo-colony (or vassal if you prefer) which you seem to think so, as if their people are indirect subjects if the US? or if there is a mutual-defence agreement like with NATO (I didn't see SK troops dying like Danish and British troops in Afghanistan, did you?)

> Just step back from the keyboard for a few years. Active young minds start learning about the world and various so-called injustices have a difficult time putting them into context. There is a such thing a 'good' and 'moral'.

Yes there is, when did I disagree. There is also something called authority without which morals can't be enforced. Sovreignity means lack of subjugation to a higher authority, in other words you can have an opinion with regards to morals but you can't enforce them or expect others to care if you lack authority. There is also something called responsibility, in the case of nation states preservation of sovreignity over people and land is the most important responsibility without which there is no self-determination .

Iran is the UK of the middle east. They want their empire back and cant have it, because alot of the other big empires cant have little pet-empires. It makes the game-board look messy. Ideology or religion does not factor into it on all related sides.

> Iran wants nukes to further destabilising and terrorise the ME. NK wants nukes to keep it's nation sized prison under total control.

Sounds like a cartoon villain.

They are cartoon villains. Definitely. Read their public statements. They write their own scripts.

> do not have nukes and they are 'Good Places' not 'Vassals' of anyone.

Tell that to the Okinawans.

Okinawans are Japanese, who overall absolutely want the support of the US.

Thankfully, the deeply racist and xenophobic Okinawans who don't want white men around their daughters and who lack the broader context of understanding how important their overal security is ... don't get entirely to make the call entirely themselves.

Or rather, if there were 'sovereign and independent' of both Japan and the US, they'd have to instantly reverse course and beg for the Americans and Japanese to come back in some form, lest they be completely controlled by China.

No US servicemen sexually assaulted women in Okinawa, and if they did, they were brought to justice. Don't even waste your time looking it up because there is nothing to see here.