The US military is far, far, FAR more disciplined than the US population in general. lets consider the lowest crime region in the US:I have to go with Obeika on this one man. Frankly that was kinda embarrassing as an American that you have to pride yourself on good behavior. Dude, it's the United States military. Shouldn't you expect to have higher standards of discipline to begin with? Especially when you're in a foreign country?? Argh, this kinda-- no-- it really bu
gs me that Americans have this 'the world is our playground' kind of attitude as long as we're doing the right thing on an overall basis.
Think about it this way, if we're going to play world police, then if anything, shouldn't we be doing it in an even more respectful manner that what we usually do at home? I mean common, it's basic housemanners. Your mom tells you to be on your best behavior when you go over to Billy's house, so shouldn't we be doing this in foreign countries as well (meaning you act better than the way you act at home)? If the US promises to do something, then we aught to promise to do a good job of it, and not just think we should be permitted to produce a certain amount of crime. I think this has something to do with being proud of what we do and doing it well if you know what I mean...
I love our military, and honestly I think most would agree that our hearts as Americans are in the right place, but that sometimes our actions dont' reflect that. I just find it sad/slightly embarrassing that establishments such as our esteemed and disciplined military also reflect that attitude in a foreign country.
I have a very close connection with the Japanese government's connections to the bases. My fiance happens to be a teacher at one of them as an employee of the Japanese government.
Japan helps pay for minor things such as mwr, host nation teachers, etc. I dont know the stats on this, if you can find them, please do. However, I am gonna guess that Japan's government pays for about 5% when the total cost is counted up; that is the high end.
Lets do some logical thinking here. You want a 'better value' than paying less than 10% (good guess) for a massive protection scheme. You consider this to be a bad value due to a 16/100000 crime rate.
This equals: Japan blows a lot of money in Guam, Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc. every year. Yes, they have a positive impact on the economy of the US.
This won't happen until the Japanese government is confident that it is protected; the constitution must be changed to allow for an offensive capability.
Answer this question: Who is gaining the most from the US presence in Japan?
Given the US's current arsenals we really don't need bases here. We can hit very hard, very quickly, and very silently with our subs, b2's etc. from the 48 states in the mainland.
You consider this to be a bad value due to a 16/100000 crime rate.
The US military is far, far, FAR more disciplined than the US population in general. lets consider the lowest crime region in the US:
And don't forget China. I'm sure they would love to get their hands on Japan with all of their technology and money! They did just shoot a satalite down a few months ago remember.Constitution: This is the biggy. Until Japan revises its constitution to allow it to have a more offensively capable force, it can not protect itself. The military realm does not rely on contemplating whether one's attack will be twarted. What keeps enemies at bay is threat of a counter-attack. Japan has no way to counter attack any possible foe, i.e. NK. If Japan wants us gone, we can leave. This won't happen until the Japanese government is confident that it is protected; the constitution must be changed to allow for an offensive capability.
If you go further into the 'counter attack' mentality. What will it be that keeps NK from possibly launching a nuke when they actually have one capable of firing to Japan? The threat of retaliation either in mass conventional style or in 'eye for an eye' style. Japan could probably hit NK with few cruise missiles, bombs ( from fighters since japan doesnt really have attack craft), but that wouldn't do much. Why is nk kept at bay? the mass forces that the US has at its border and the massive firepower it can quickly project from bases here, nuke subs, etc.
Let's face it, the US-Japan alliance is militarily one sided. Japan gets massively discounted defense, we get a few bases that help serve our needs as well as Japan's defense. We will protect Japan if it is ever attacked (which is why it won't be), Do you think that a possible enemy of the US would consider Japan's involvement if it attacked the US, probably not.
Given the US's current arsenals we really don't need bases here. We can hit very hard, very quickly, and very silently with our subs, b2's etc. from the 48 states in the mainland.
The Carrier group at Yokosuka is more firepower projection than all of Japan's Air/Sea power. How can you get a better value than that?
Answer this question: Who is gaining the most from the US presence in Japan?
Japan doesnt pay for MWR, next ALL Japanese employees on the bases are paid by the Japanese government. The US government pays them "0", there are a total of somewhere around 23,500 Japanese employees on all the bases. Do you have any idea how many military personnel there are here in Japan. About 47,000 or so, and about 5,000 DOD Civilian employees including teachers. I give you the links later.
Japan has the 2nd largest economy in the world, Japan also has the very real ability to bankrupt the US if it ever started selling off the debt that it currently holds. The US and Japan are partners, abiet the US is larger and has more interests through out the world, but dont start looking down on or thumbing your nose at the Japanese and their economy.
They should pay them. We have millions of dollars of weapons to protect you.
Which would send the whole world into a recession if not a depression since we are all linked together by the stock markets. we couldn't protect japan leaving you open for any attack by any country not just NK and china. So you shouldn't act like the Japanese and their economy wouldn't be harmed by the selling of the US debt.
where to start.... hmmm you dont feel protected by the us military, but they are a necessary evil.... why are they necessary?Protect me, what a joke, you think I am Japanese right? Take a look at my profile and you might be surprised. I dont feel protected by the US military, not at all. It's presence here is unfortunately a necessary evil in this day and age.
Do you feel "protected" in the US by the US Military? The biggest protection the US has, not only now, but throughout history, has been the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Not only the overly burdensome national debt that is partially due to outlandish military spending.
You don't quite get it either do you. If you actually happened to read my post there is nothing in it that would suggest otherwise.
Oh and please don't go start thinking that if the bases were not here China or North Korea would "suddenly" attack Japan. That is ludicrous as well. The relations between these countries is not even close to the point where "open" warfare could even be thought about let alone be considered.
You also forget that China and Korea do not have the amphibious capabilities to force an invasion of this "island" country. Even theorizing about this subject is pointless.
who was i responding to in that post?Statistics mean "0" here as well.
Your logic is flawed, can't you get that? It doesn't matter one bit what the US Military does anywhere else. It's here in Japan that matters.
That's all nothing else.
No, I don't. And yes, you did.
I might not be clear enough, but you misunderstood what I'm talking about.
I don't think the whole US troops could commit crimes, majority of people must be great people, but it is also true that some of them do commit such crimes - unfortunately it is often reported on TV news.
Such crimes of course are not unique to them, I'm sure the number of Japanese offender is way far more than those from the US troops considering the number of population of Japanese.
Yet...
When I hear the military forces, I expect diciplined people. They are there believing they are doing what they believe is right, aren't they? Considering that and also about the astronomical amount of money being paid to them from our tax, for our security and to protect us, learning that something quite opposite is happening is more than disappointment.
... I don't think people should have special treatment (bad or good) because they are foreigners, but I think the US criminals should undergo their misdeed through their prison system. I don't know why the japanese taxpayers should pay for prisoners who doesn't have the japanese citizenship.
And don't forget China. I'm sure they would love to get their hands on Japan with all of their technology and money! They did just shoot a satalite down a few months ago remember.
But why would the USA want to foot the bill to keep someone in prison for a crime committed elsewhere? I would much rather have someone convicted of a felonious crime serve their time right where the crime was committed. Why allow them to go back to the US where they would have more rights and be treated better? Doesn't sound like much of a deterrant to me.
You might want to learn more about the military and what is called "moral waivers" (waivers for enlistments, allowing in people who have indeed committed crimes before signing up). More entering Army with criminal records - The Boston GlobeUS servemembers are the most law abiding people by percentage than most groups. If you have commited a crime prior to the military or show that you can not be trusted they will not let you join. For example.. all service members are scrutinized with credit checks, criminal backround checks and many times, even their family members are checked as well (brothers, mothers, fathers).
Nearly 12 percent of Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and 2 1/2 times the percentage four years ago, according to new Army statistics...
Since Oct. 1, 2006, when the fiscal year began, more than 8,000 of the roughly 69,000 recruits have been granted waivers for offenses ranging in seriousness from misdemeanors such as vandalism to felonies such as burglary and aggravated assault.
Moral waivers must be approved by an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct -- or two to four misdemeanors such as larcency, trespassing, or vandalism.
Applicants who have committed a single felony such as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana possession must also receive a moral waiver to join. Applicants with more than one felony -- or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking -- are not eligible.
The number of moral waivers in the military, mostly for misdemeanours such as speeding fines, reached 34,476 in 2006, or nearly 20% of all enlisted soldiers, according to the Palm Centre at the University of California. Recruits with felony convictions are more likely than other soldiers to drop out or be released from the military.
More than one felony conviction disqualifies recruits from the army or marines, but the navy and air force can admit those with multiple offences.
About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver to enlist in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003. In addition, the report showed that the Army granted substantially fewer waivers for drug use and serious traffic violations last year than in 2003.
More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements. Felony waivers made up about 2 percent of the Marine waivers, while other lesser crimes made up about 25 percent, both up slightly from 2003.
About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up only slightly from 2003. Two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Navy were for misdemeanor-type crimes and about 5 percent were for felonies.
Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003. Nearly all of the waivers were for the misdemeanor-type crimes.
Some people might think Japan would be a free rider, but it is just wrong.Do Japanese citizens pay for the US troops presence?
Isn't saying, "Yeah there are bad guys in our group, you should expect it," but also saying, "You don't have the right to scrutinize us so much, we don't deserve it," hypocritical at best. I think it's damned arrogant.
...
The real problem, though, and I've been saying this for a long time on many forums, is that the Japanese media and locals skew the data on how many crimes are actually committed vs. the percentage when compared to the local population. That is what Americans should be outraged at.