Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

[Capster78]

That is probably because you only see Japanese Imperial soldiers evil. I do not see most of the Imperial soldiers evil, albeit what the Japanese Imperial forces did as a group. When I criticize the Imperial forces, I do not criticize each soldier.

The US employs a similar rhetoric. Many in the US say, "We are against the Iraq war, but we support our troops." I criticize what the Japanese Imperial forces did in WWII but support those who fought for my country. Some of the things US did were not correct in my view, but the vast majority of things sound reasonable to me. It is not black or white. It is gray, and I'm talking about how gray it looks. The US is definitely not black, but not white either.

It looks grey to you because of the way the media goes about painting the situation. I give little faith in the media reporting unbiased information. The media wants a story, readers love a conspiracy, and politicians are feeding off of all of it like hawks. It makes me sick!!

 

[grapefruit]

It looks grey to you because of the way the media goes about painting the situation. I give little faith in the media reporting unbiased information. The media wants a story, readers love a conspiracy, and politicians are feeding off of all of it like hawks. It makes me sick!!

The media was not something what I had in mind. I am talking about history. It is true that books are biased as well. However, one can choose to read a wide variety of books if he/she is really interested in knowing truth (although there is no "truth", only views and interpretations exist). Some people prefer to read things that they only want to hear, but others read books that contain different views and evaluate what they read and make their own decisions.

Besides, I feel it is too simplistic to consider the US "good" and the rest of the world "evil". It dangerously sounds like religion.

 

[Capster78]

The media was not something what I had in mind. I am talking about history. It is true that books are biased as well. However, one can choose to read a wide variety of books if he/she is really interested in knowing truth (although there is no "truth", only views and interpretations exist). Some people prefer to read things that they only want to hear, but others read books that contain different views and evaluate what they read and make their own decisions.

Besides, I feel it is too simplistic to consider the US "good" and the rest of the world "evil". It dangerously sounds like religion.

I do not claim the rest of the world to be evil. I understand very well what you are talking about. I understand the whole concept of how history could look different depending on who's view you look at it from. However, I think US history is fairly accurate as to who the bad guys were and who the good guys were. We even agree that during the Indian and Mexican wars, we were the bad guys. Americans are more critical of their history than most other cultures I know. What I mean is, we don't hide the bad parts of our history, such as, slavery, ethnic cleansing of the indians, invasion of mexico...

I agree, it is dangerous to stick to one view of the world. It has to be looked at by several different views. I share this same philosophy with religion.

 

[Sukotto]

Hisako Masumi of the Article 9 Society proposes the following

I propose the following: We should abandon the U.S. military's nuclear umbrella and change the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty into a Friendship Treaty. The U.S. military should leave Japan and our Self-Defense Force should be reorganized into a Disaster Aid Force that will never go overseas bearing arms.

In addition to awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to Article 9, I would request the United Nations to declare that the U.N. will protect Japan so long as it maintains Article 9. That would be Japan's best defense in today's world.

 

[grapefruit]

I would request the United Nations to declare that the U.N. will protect Japan so long as it maintains Article 9. That would be Japan's best defense in today's world.

This statement appears to be too naive and unrealistic about the U.N. Given the fact that China occupies a seat in the UN security council with veto power, Japan could be easily invaded or manipulated by the neighboring country.

 

[caster51]

Japan could be easily invaded or manipulated by the neighboring country.

that is why Japan should change the article9 and have A-bomd
according to world history ,It is opposit.

The country that hires mercenaries and is the defense of the country is ruined without fail in the future.

 

[grapefruit]

that is why Japan should change the article9 and have A-bomd
according to world history ,It is opposit.
The country that hires mercenaries and is the defense of the country is ruined without fail in the future.

I'm not sure about the nuclear weapon option.

 

[Capster78]

I'm not sure about the nuclear weapon option.

Oh my!! Can you imagine what would happen if Japan built a nuclear weapon. I can see China and S.Korea's reaction right now.

 

[Sukotto]

This statement appears to be too naive and unrealistic about the U.N. Given the fact that China occupies a seat in the UN security council with veto power, Japan could be easily invaded or manipulated by the neighboring country.

Countries don't just naturally 'want to invade' neighboring countries.
My apologies for sounding...whatever, but you don't really think such do you?

 

[grapefruit]

Countries don't just naturally 'want to invade' neighboring countries.
My apologies for sounding...whatever, but you don't really think such do you?

I don't think the Chinese leaders really "want to invade" Japan. But, given the fact that the Chinese national sentiment is strongly anti-Japanese, it is possible for the Chinese government to do something with disputed territories to appease their citizens when a situation becomes out of control.

 

[caster51]

given the fact that the Chinese national sentiment is strongly anti-Japanese, it is possible for the Chinese government to do something with disputed territories to appease their citizens when a situation becomes out of control.

it had gone..
they realized Japan will not be an enemy anymore
anyway
strongly anti-Japanese
I think it is good for the chinese ppl...
Japan should use this energy to destroy the CCP.
that is why they quit it last time

 

[Capster78]

Countries don't just naturally 'want to invade' neighboring countries.
My apologies for sounding...whatever, but you don't really think such do you?

I think is a lot more complex than that. There are reasons like more commodities such as oil/natural gas/land for agriculture. Or it could be a general dislike or dispute over the boarders drawn on a map.

 

[Sukotto]

I think is a lot more complex than that. There are reasons like more commodities such as oil/natural gas/land for agriculture. Or it could be a general dislike or dispute over the boarders drawn on a map.

While I wouldn't argue about the economics stuff involved with war (all wars have economics as the major underlying issue),
with all do respect, Japan doesn't really seem to have major sources of natural resources that a country such as China would want to attack for.

What are the major border issues that Chinese and/or the Chinese gov't tends to bring up?
I am not aware of any that are directly involving Japan.

 

[grapefruit]

While I wouldn't argue about the economics stuff involved with war (all wars have economics as the major underlying issue),
with all do respect, Japan doesn't really seem to have major sources of natural resources that a country such as China would want to attack for.
What are the major border issues that Chinese and/or the Chinese gov't tends to bring up?
I am not aware of any that are directly involving Japan.

The Senkaku (Diaoyutai) Islands and Chunxiao Gas Field disputes are recent disputes. Also, the line that defines each country's Exclusive Economic Zone has been disputed. Depending on where to draw the line, rights to marine resources will be substantially affected.

 

[Sukotto]

The Senkaku (Diaoyutai) Islands and Chunxiao Gas Field disputes are recent disputes. Also, the line that defines each country's Exclusive Economic Zone has been disputed. Depending on where to draw the line, rights to marine resources will be substantially affected.

Japan & China are both signers of treaties on international law.
What does international law say with regards to offshore resources?

Neither countries people are starving,
so I kind of doubt the issue will rise to the level of war.

Uh, wait a minute,

the US is in the middle of two illegal unjustifiable wars over economic resources...you may have a point.

 

[grapefruit]

Japan & China are both signers of treaties on international law.
What does international law say with regards to offshore resources?
Neither countries people are starving,
so I kind of doubt the issue will rise to the level of war.
Uh, wait a minute,

the US is in the middle of two illegal unjustifiable wars over economic resources...you may have a point.

The opinion expressed above seems too naive. Unfortunately many countries go into war for trifle reasons. Small border skirmishes can develop into a large scale war. Many border conflicts arise for silly reasons that have little to do with major sources of natural resources. For instance, the border conflict between Spain and Morocco in 2002 was over a tiny Mediterranean island.

 

[Capster78]

Japan & China are both signers of treaties on international law.
What does international law say with regards to offshore resources?
Neither countries people are starving,
so I kind of doubt the issue will rise to the level of war.
Uh, wait a minute,

the US is in the middle of two illegal unjustifiable wars over economic resources...you may have a point.

I can tell when someone has been listening to closely to propaganda on the news. They are the ones who will say the war is for oil. Lets take a look at this shall we.

Since the war in Iraq started oil prices have shot thru the roof. The infrastructure of the oil fields is in disrepair from insurgent attacks and sabatage. A large US oil company tried to get a contract to drill/survey the oil fields in iraq and were DENIED by the Iraqi government. We are giving the country back to the people of Iraq. If our goal was to gain more resources by invading Iraq, we failed misserably. Or could it be that this theory is flawed all along.

 

[grapefruit]

I can tell when someone has been listening to closely to propaganda on the news. They are the ones who will say the war is for oil. Lets take a look at this shall we.
Since the war in Iraq started oil prices have shot thru the roof. The infrastructure of the oil fields is in disrepair from insurgent attacks and sabatage. A large US oil company tried to get a contract to drill/survey the oil fields in iraq and were DENIED by the Iraqi government. We are giving the country back to the people of Iraq. If our goal was to gain more resources by invading Iraq, we failed misserably. Or could it be that this theory is flawed all along.

This is off topic but the oil companies have magically gained so much profit. Also, the possibility of insurgent attacks and sabotage was not predicated prior to the invasion. So was the denial of access to oil fields. Oh, yes, the US did fail miserably (on so many levels). Don't deny the fact that the mission was a failure.

 

[Capster78]

This is off topic but the oil companies have magically gained so much profit. Also, the possibility of insurgent attacks and sabotage was not predicated prior to the invasion. So was the denial of access to oil fields. Oh, yes, the US did fail miserably (on so many levels). Don't deny the fact that the mission was a failure.

The oil companies gaining profit does not equate at all to money in the pocket of the US. If the US has as much control as people on your side of the argument think they do, that oil contract would have been approved. That is my whole point. Failure???? Saddam is out of power, the insurgency has died down to pre-invasion levels. Iraq has a elected government, no longer a opressive dictatorship. I would say that is a success. It will quickly turn into a failure if we leave though, I agree with you there.

 

[grapefruit]

The oil companies gaining profit does not equate at all to money in the pocket of the US.

I never claimed all money will be flowed into the US.

If the US has as much control as people on your side of the argument think they do, that oil contract would have been approved.

I never said the US has much control. Don't assume too much.

That is my whole point. Failure???? Saddam is out of power, the insurgency has died down to pre-invasion levels. Iraq has a elected government, no longer a opressive dictatorship. I would say that is a success. It will quickly turn into a failure if we leave though, I agree with you there.

You can think of it in anyway you like. The majority of the US population think it was a failure. I know it is a failure. Probably, deep down you also know it is a failure (Isn't that why you are so defensive?).

 

[Capster78]

I never claimed all money will be flowed into the US.


I never said the US has much control. Don't assume too much.

Then why do you think its about oil???

You can think of it in anyway you like. The majority of the US population think it was a failure. I know it is a failure. Probably, deep down you also know it is a failure (Isn't that why you are so defensive?).

Im sorry to tell you, but the majority of the US population does not even know where Iraq is on a map. I put little faith in them to be able to distiguish between political propaganda for the next election, and factual information.

 

[grapefruit]

Then why do you think its about oil???
Im sorry to tell you, but the majority of the US population does not even know where Iraq is on a map. I put little faith in them to be able to distiguish between political propaganda for the next election, and factual information.

I never raised the topic of oil. It is you who raised the topic as below

Since the war in Iraq started oil prices have shot thru the roof. The infrastructure of the oil fields is in disrepair from insurgent attacks and sabatage. A large US oil company tried to get a contract to drill/survey the oil fields in iraq and were DENIED by the Iraqi government. We are giving the country back to the people of Iraq. If our goal was to gain more resources by invading Iraq, we failed misserably. Or could it be that this theory is flawed all along.

 

[Sukotto]

The opinion expressed above seems too naive. Unfortunately many countries go into war for trifle reasons. Small border skirmishes can develop into a large scale war. Many border conflicts arise for silly reasons that have little to do with major sources of natural resources. For instance, the border conflict between Spain and Morocco in 2002 was over a tiny Mediterranean island.

(Most of this is response to Capster78's posts. sorry. but Some to GF too)

Yeah.
But it's usually not about "WE have control of this island. Ha!"
And then, even if it finally is about something as absurd as "pride" today.
There was some history that unseated this "pride" long ago.

Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines re. d. once wrote a tract titled "War is a Racket"

It withstands the test of time.

And it's not "our" goal. It is our rulers' goal. The "corporate overlords" if you will. They run things. No one gets elected in the US to high office without the millions of corporate backing. From time to time one particular industry may support one party or candidate more heavily than the other, but for the most part, they have their say.

If the war in Iraq is indeed about oil, that in no way implies we would receive cheap prices at the pump. Like the corporate chumps that run things give a patoot about our pocket books when they really only care about their stock options and own bank accounts. Control of the oil is what would matter to the corporations. It doesn't matter who they sell it to.
Which is why some US congress people were against drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas because legislation ok-ing it had no guarantee the oil would wind up in the US market.

Which leads me back to the Iraq war 2.0
More accurately it was/is about the "corporate agenda"
or "free market" fundamentalist ideology.
See Naomi Kline's "The Shock Doctrine" for the ugly details.
She covers stuff from all over the place which documented quite
well else where. It is her linking it all together under the title "The Shock
Doctrine" that she does so well.
Those in charge of the occupation of Iraq tried to Shock Iraq economically by rewriting all their economic laws. It was a blatant attempt at theft plain and simple. The occupiers tried to justify it using some dying ideology. Soon to be as dead as Stalinism. (We hope)

So, yeah. Iraq Persian Gulf War 2.0 is plainly has economics as the underlying issue.
Just like every other war.

Hopefully China & Japan don't let things get out of hand
and can resolve things peacefully and in good faith as per international law treaties they may have signed.


(p.s. I don't watch television news. I never have on any regular basis)

 

[Capster78]

(Most of this is response to Capster78's posts. sorry. but Some to GF too)

Yeah.
But it's usually not about "WE have control of this island. Ha!"
And then, even if it finally is about something as absurd as "pride" today.
There was some history that unseated this "pride" long ago.

Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines re. d. once wrote a tract titled "War is a Racket"

It withstands the test of time.

And it's not "our" goal. It is our rulers' goal. The "corporate overlords" if you will. They run things. No one gets elected in the US to high office without the millions of corporate backing. From time to time one particular industry may support one party or candidate more heavily than the other, but for the most part, they have their say.

If the war in Iraq is indeed about oil, that in no way implies we would receive cheap prices at the pump. Like the corporate chumps that run things give a patoot about our pocket books when they really only care about their stock options and own bank accounts. Control of the oil is what would matter to the corporations. It doesn't matter who they sell it to.
Which is why some US congress people were against drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas because legislation ok-ing it had no guarantee the oil would wind up in the US market.

Which leads me back to the Iraq war 2.0
More accurately it was/is about the "corporate agenda"
or "free market" fundamentalist ideology.
See Naomi Kline's "The Shock Doctrine" for the ugly details.
She covers stuff from all over the place which documented quite
well else where. It is her linking it all together under the title "The Shock
Doctrine" that she does so well.
Those in charge of the occupation of Iraq tried to Shock Iraq economically by rewriting all their economic laws. It was a blatant attempt at theft plain and simple. The occupiers tried to justify it using some dying ideology. Soon to be as dead as Stalinism. (We hope)

So, yeah. Iraq Persian Gulf War 2.0 is plainly has economics as the underlying issue.
Just like every other war.

Hopefully China & Japan don't let things get out of hand
and can resolve things peacefully and in good faith as per international law treaties they may have signed.


(p.s. I don't watch television news. I never have on any regular basis)

I don't even know where to start with this post. Just the current state of the economy should discredit this whole argument. After 6 years, we have poured more money into Iraq than we could ever recouperate even if we had some sort of agenda to do so. Maybe the accountant who came up with this conspiracy should be fired.

 

[grapefruit]

I don't even know where to start with this post. Just the current state of the economy should discredit this whole argument. After 6 years, we have poured more money into Iraq than we could ever recouperate even if we had some sort of agenda to do so. Maybe the accountant who came up with this conspiracy should be fired.

What about the war industry and those American subcontractors? Are they doing well in this economic crisis?:?