MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
Until the neighbour calls their young grandson, slightly older then the kids, to evict them.
America Should Get Out of Japan, Now!!!
- Thread starter Blue Tiger
- Start date
Tatsuhiro_Zensu
SNLF Fanatic
- 9 Aug 2005
- 12
- 0
I agree that America should leave Japan. During WW2 Japan was amazing, but with its industrial base think what it could do now. Japan has gotten far to passive, they should return to at least some semblance of their WW2 self, only thing I would change is the atrocious human rights violations.
Americans, go home! Why not?
It is NOT a funny question! Very serious !☝
Why don't say - Americans, go home as National Movement?
Amazing.... but not so actual..... and imporant, may be...
May be, people are happy in any case....
American dream became as japanese dream ?
Big house, big car, a lot of money, but hard...hard...hard work of japanese salary-man ?
And, don't forget it is better for safety because of some "small and strange" N-Korean missiles....
cheers,
It is NOT a funny question! Very serious !☝
Why don't say - Americans, go home as National Movement?
Amazing.... but not so actual..... and imporant, may be...
May be, people are happy in any case....
American dream became as japanese dream ?
Big house, big car, a lot of money, but hard...hard...hard work of japanese salary-man ?
And, don't forget it is better for safety because of some "small and strange" N-Korean missiles....
cheers,
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Tatsuhiro_Zensu said:
It's more than just human rights violations. I disagree with a lot about Japan returning to its WW2 roots, which are, politically speaking, militarism. It was a military regime that controlled the government, effectively being a 20th-century shogunate.
However, I do agree with reverence for the emperor. I also believe that the U.S. and Japan should re-evaluate their treaty. I think we should keep a base in Okinawa , still, but it should be reduced in size and strength. And I think any re-evaluation of the U.S.-Japan accords should have the input of S. Korea, China, and Taiwan (and perhaps Russia), because any changes to the U.S.-Japan relationship will have an impact on all of the East Asian socio-political-economic sphere. They'd probably prefer the Japanese government officially renounce the Pacific War and the actions of the Japanese military government during it.
But we should definitely not simply cut and leave. Japan has been a vassal state for a long time. Such are the spoils of war. But enough time has passed for the fence to be mended formally.
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
We are also there to make sure North Korea and China don't get too aggressive either. Honestly, I am more worried about North Korea than Japan.
ricecake said:
Do you actually believe that? The United States has been pushing Japan to become more active in UN Operations throughout the world, particularly after what happened during the First Gulf War.
The Japanese Consititution needs to be rewritten before Japan could legally take any offensive action anywhere.
Plus the current population doesn't look at or see the Emperor as being "divine" or otherwise and are much more educated than what they were prior to WWII, to imply that Japan has any "imperialistic" ideals is just plain ludicrous.
Carlson
Stay At Home Mom!
- 30 Oct 2005
- 1,136
- 15
kokusu said:First, having the U.S. stationed in Japan is part of Japan's defense/military strategy. So, when it is argued that the U.S. should get out of Japan so that Japan can freely come up with its only military defense strategy, I argue that Japan already has come up with a defense strategy: rely on the U.S.!
I love this man... lol
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Carlson said:
I would say that is pretty much the truth.
Although, with all due respect, I do not see why any body would
invade Japan. I mean, what would they have to gain? Most
wars have resources as their underlying cause. Why did Japan invade
other countries? Resources. They don't do it just because someone
insults them or to feel good about themselves. That might be some
excuse given domestically, but... come on. Was WW1 truly about only
the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand?
MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
Its a safe bet to simply state that the reasons for the US being in Japan and the Japanese allowing the US there far outweigh the cons.
Though large and relatively modern, Japans military budget is fairly small, Ity essentially allows America to willingly pick up the bill for Japan's defence interests.
Though large and relatively modern, Japans military budget is fairly small, Ity essentially allows America to willingly pick up the bill for Japan's defence interests.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
nurizeko said:
That is a matter of opinion.
Any potential cultural exchanges that might occur as a result of thousands of US citizens being there could be done outside the context of bases being there. And be cheaper too. One downside to using cultural exchange as a good thing from the bases being there is that it is predominantly young US single males that are encountered. This could make it seem like US culture is very macho and militaristic.
--Uh, wait a minute. It kind of is. I grew up on war toys, hollywood movies, video games, and such. Don't ask me how I ended up not believing in war. It just sort of happened.
too early...
The United States profit is to continue straining to Asia.
that is to sell the weapons.
In a word, the withdrawal of the United States increases the possibility of the Taiwan invasion of China.
It comes to throw away the United States hegemony in the Pacific Ocean, too.
Japan should do the constitutional revision.
article 9 is meaningless.
Sukotto said:
You have a too one sided view on the military the military is of course yoused to kill in times of war ,or if you decide to invade a country because criminals are hiding out there and kill loads of innocent people as you will have seen very well demonstrated by the isrealy army =)
But the military also provides jobs it in some way is a social net for people to fall into if they lose their job or have a simular problem.
And it can also be very helpdfull to well soften the blow of natural disasters.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
That last sentance, not in the US...
oh, low blow.
That had more to do with politics than anything else.
If a jobs program is the excuse for maintaining a military with over 700 bases in 130 different countries and spening more than the rest of the world combined, then the US truly is bankrupt.
I might have been in the minority, but there were many even in NYCity,
but I did not believe bombing Afghanistan was a good idea.
One analyst put it this way,
would you bomb Massachusetts to get serial killer such as the Boston Strangler?
A jobs program that would involve cultural exchanges and language learning and helping to rebuild communities both in one's home country and abroad would go a far longer way towards ending terrorism & be cheaper too,
than bombing neighborhoods and creating a next generation of terrorist by default.
Seems like some lessons in Realpoltik should be required reading. The US is not going to leave Japan anytime in the forseable future. Bigger and better ships, missiles and aircraft are on the way -- see USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, USS MUSTIN, and new sale of Patriots to GOJ.
Hells Bells -- It's cheap to have forward deployed forces when the host country picks up most of the bill. Why in the world would the US want to leave and risk such valuable sea and air trade lanes? Not gonna happen.
Hells Bells -- It's cheap to have forward deployed forces when the host country picks up most of the bill. Why in the world would the US want to leave and risk such valuable sea and air trade lanes? Not gonna happen.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Henry Kissinger was big into this so-called "Realpoltik".
And...not many people like him.
In fact some consider him a war criminal.
The Trial of Henry Kissinger
"Realpoltik" just means those in power don't want it.
Dr. Henry helped defeat the USSR. And your definition of realpoltik is, well, weird. It's simply the advancement of national interest. If you don't believe national interest is "real" then plz pass me some of them drugs....
It's in the national interest of the US to keep sea and air lanes of communication (aka trade) open. Japan and the US are linked at the hip as economies. So instead of asking "should the US military leave Japan," a more appropriate question might be why would the US willing leave a forward deployed location with much of the expense born by the host nation? Don't you think it kinda helps the US deal with the few remaining communists such as N Korea and China?
Also, why would Japan want the US to leave? You don't think they like the status quo?
I'm just trying to think about this from a rational point of view...
It's in the national interest of the US to keep sea and air lanes of communication (aka trade) open. Japan and the US are linked at the hip as economies. So instead of asking "should the US military leave Japan," a more appropriate question might be why would the US willing leave a forward deployed location with much of the expense born by the host nation? Don't you think it kinda helps the US deal with the few remaining communists such as N Korea and China?
Also, why would Japan want the US to leave? You don't think they like the status quo?
I'm just trying to think about this from a rational point of view...
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
A LOT of people regardless of political persuasion don't like the good doctor.
My carreer military uncle at least read the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger".
To be honest I do not know what he left about it, but I do know he read it.
"national interest"
according to whom?
How can nearly 300 million people have the same interests?
I'm not a Libertarian (or any party member for that matter),
but I happen to agree with Texas Republican congressman Ron Paul,
that "national interest" is always somebody's interests.
It has been noted that governments are the representation of domestic power structures. Who has the power in the US? I would answer the corporations. Those that wish to maintain their legal privaleges that the corporate legal construct allows them. Furthermore, in foreign policy - of the US - corporate interests are favored above all else. US foreign policy is and has been about shoving the corporation down other country's throats.
The corporation is a legal entity, not a force of nature like a regular business, say owned by your mom or dad, sister or brother, neighbor, etc...
When a business or whatever is incorporated, that is granted a license or charter from the state, it operates with various privaleges that are just that - privaleges, not rights. Limited liability is one such privalege. Limited liability is not a right. Slave owners and kings thought they had limited liability granted by god. They were wrong.
Other peoples have the right to make their own laws, including not only not constructing such legal entities, but also not allowing corporations from other countries to operate in their countries at all.
While I can appreciate the concern over any type of rule by the few such as China or North Korea, I do not believe they want to try to 'take over the world, let alone their neighbors. South Koreans ceratinly feel this way about North Korea and were even trying to re-connect with their brethern at the end of the 90s and even up to when the US gov't came up with the phrase 'axis of evil'.
So no I do not believe the US should maitain over 700 known & acknowledged bases in over 130 different countries, including Japan.
