|WikiProject International relations||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class)|
Added to page so it isn't just about the specific example of 20th century client states. --Masamax 22:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
日本は米国の「患者国家」？/Client state = Patient state
ガバン・マコーマック氏は client state を「顧客国家」と訳しているが、その訳はふさわしくないと思う。日本は米国の顧客国家であるがゆえに日本は米国を満足させるべく米国の言うことを聞くということを述べているが、本来ならサービスを提供する側が顧客を満足させる。これが「顧客満足」である。もっとも「client」は語源的には接客者のほうが偉いというのを暗示しているが・・・「顧客国家」という訳は本末転倒だ。Client は「患者」をも意味し、client state は「患者国家」が適訳である。患者なら医者の指示に従わなければならない。勝手な和製英語を作れば「patient state」だ。Patient state はまた「忍耐強い国」をも意味し、日本（特に沖縄）は基地の重圧に忍耐することを強いられており、まさにpatient stateだ。戦前日本の軍国主義体質を「治療」すべくGHQに占領されていたが、1952には「治療」は済み、独立国になったはず。いつまでも患者国家である必要はなく、日本は（顧客なら）米国にもっと「ノー！」とクレームをいえるようになるべきだ。--スカーレット上原 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Gavan McCormack translates client state as "a customer nation", but thinks that the reason is not good. Japan speaks that I hear what U.S.A. says because Japan is an American customer nation in order to satisfy U.S.A., but a side to originally offer service to satisfies a customer. This is "customer satisfaction". "client" suggests that a person of waiting on customers is greater for the etymology, but the reason called the ... "customer nation" is illogical in fact. Client means "a patient", and, as for client state, "a patient nation" is appropriate translation. A patient must obey the instructions of the doctor. If it makes selfish Japanese English, it is "patient state". Patient state means "a patient country" again, and, in Japan (Okinawa in particular), it is forced the strong pressure of the base to standing it, and it is right patient state. It was occupied the Japanese militarism constitution in "treatment" すべく GHQ, but I finished "the treatment" to 1952 and should have become the independent country before the war. It is not necessary to be a patient nation forever;, in Japan, more (a customer) in U.S.A.; "no!" You should get possible to call an objection ". --HANMURA Ken (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To delete this article?
I do not see any valid reference suppporting the text of this article. Also, no wish to work on expanding or supporting by references the existing text - from the article inception.
I am afraid Hanmura Ken misunderstands the term 'client', which has two separate but related meanings in English. One meaning is indeed as 'customer', but the relevant meaning is as a subordinate or follower of a patron. That is the meaning intended by McCormack. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Colombia and Mexico Nowadays, this countries are the best known US client states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Iraq most definitely a US client state. Some would go much further than that, and list nations like South Korea, Japan, and even the UK as US client states. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
U.S. and Israel
I don't understand why Israel isn't mentioned as a U.S. client state, when their relations are the very definition of client state. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle-East and the wider Muslim world is done at Israel's behest. All political/military actions the U.S. takes there are to either to ensure Israel's military superiority and to keep it from being held accountable. Also: "The United States also supports small, but strategic, countries in regions where their sovereignty is threatened." This statement implies that the sole reason the U.S. supports these nations is because they are weak/helpless to defend themselves, with enemies threatening them at every turn. Which is far from the truth. It reads like a statement from the U.S. Government. (i.e. Bahrain is supported because it hosts the Fifth Fleet, essential for U.S. military activities in the region and Taiwan: to oppose China). A qualifier or a rewording should be in the works. Anyway, would like to know other thoughts before making any changes. RTCKING (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
U.S. and ROC(Taiwan)
The example of Taiwan as a US puppet state seems misplaced here. While the actual status of the island is open to debate, the US currently maintains neither a military base on the island nor any official diplomatic relations with Taipei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)