This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

is it the time for US Forces to leave Japan?

  • Yes, They did a lot of very bad things

    Votes: 38 17.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 63 29.3%
  • they protect Japan

    Votes: 64 29.8%
  • NO

    Votes: 31 14.4%
  • I'don't care

    Votes: 19 8.8%

  • Total voters
    215
To GodEmperorLeto
You wrote;You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.

Hello,

Russia is much closer to Europe than to the USA,Russia is a part of Europe, and Russia occupied East Europe, not Alaska.

But I was asking about the diffrent way America treated the German war criminals and how they treated the Japanese war criminals, the difference was amazing. I guess that Japan had to serve as a wall against communist China, because it was communism that the USA feared more than anything else on earth. And you know that dangerous communism just fell apart, all by itself, it was the Russian Gorbachov who pushed the iron curtain aside.
Japan was occupied by the USA only directly after the war, but East Germany was ocupied by Russia, many innocent Germans have suffered badly under the Russian yoke, the USA, Great Britain and France occupied the other parts of Germany.
Why couldn't Australia and the British occupy Japan together with the USA
just after the war? Once again; why this difference between Japan and Germany, while they were both the enemies during World War Two?
 
GodEmperorLeto said:
Well, there's an old Roman saying, "A bad peace is even worse than war."


Tell that to those who are killed.

BUT,
the ancient Romans were imperialist meanies.
And weren't the Greeks a bunch of militarists too?


I prefer Mark Twain:
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war."


For now that's all the time I have.
 
Sukotto said:
Tell that to those who are killed.
the ancient Romans were imperialist meanies.

Spare me your plebian bleeding-heart diatribes.

The Romans lived in a world where war didn't break out, peace did. The Romans of the later Empire were just as soft and afraid of war as modern Americans and Europeans are.

And they were right about a bad peace being worse than war. I know you keep ignoring me when I say this, but look at Chamberlain's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s. That was a bad peace that, thank God, resulted in war before it was too late, otherwise, Nazism would have been victorious.

Besides, although the Romans had slavery (what ancient society didn't?), it wasn't chattel slavery, and in fact, by being a slave you could improve your financial standing through a peculium and eventually buy your freedom.

Romans brought peace and stability to the Mediterranean basin for the first (and last) time in human history. Trade, the arts, science, and mathematics flourished under the pax Romana. "Imperialistic meanies" is not only vastly inaccurate, it is typical of left-wing buzzword emotional rhetoric that is only good for swaying the opinions of intellectually challenged voters, making you no better than the religious right using fabricated Bible verses and rampant misinterpretation to effect people's opinions.

 
I agree with most of your descriptions of the wars, though one or two were a bit exhagirating of America's goodyness.

The Romans were assholes alright, grade A assholes, but, they were people of their time, and they were highly civilized assholes.

Your quite right on when you say peace broke out instead of war.

Still most of the roman empire was secure from the wars so, war was always, especially in later centuries, somethnig that occured far away, kinda like modern American wars.

America is always involved in a conflict somehwere, but its always far from the "provinces" of the american "empire".
 
'When I think of Russians I think of hot women, cold weather, Stolichnaya vodka, and organized crime.'

Glad to hear this! (except for 'organised crime') Thanks for trying to demolish my thoughts about many Americans' having the Cold War mentality. But I insist that most of the American politicians still have such a mentality.

'Some of us think Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are our enemies'

If the USA invaded (under any pretence) Russia or the USSR (if it still existed), I should become a 'terrorist' (or rather fighter for freedom and independence) as well. According to your logic, I'm your enemy (at least, potential one).

'Who unleashed a war in Chechniya?'

I hate Yeltsin. He is my enemy.

However, isn't it nice that the West still reproaches Russia with Chechnya? Chechnya is a PART of Russia. In Chechnya in the 1990's we killed the terrorists who, if you don't know, were financed by the USA and Great Britain (in particular, Boris Berezovsky whom Britain granted political asylum and who is the favourite lap-dog of the English government. He's criminal N1 in Russia.). We just have killed terrorists for hire. Moreover, in 2000 there was a referendum in Chechnya. The people were asked whether they wanted to live in Russia. About 80% of them replied: 'Yes. We want to live with the Russians. We want Chechnya to be a part of Russia.'

On the other hand, the Americans and the Jews invade the OTHER countries, kill the Iraqis and the Lebanese. And the West says: 'It's okay. It's fighting against terrorism.' And no one cares about people's dying every day. Isn't it weird?

'You say this, and then you laud Napoleon later?'


I respect Napoleon for other merits.

'A bad peace is even worse than war.'

I'm persuaded that sometimes a hot war is much better than a cold war.

'So Stalin was championing stability when he invaded Eastern European countries?'

So was it okay that the USA made many Western European, and then also some of Eastern, countries join NATO (i.e. made them slaves to the USA and instruments to oppose the USSR and Russia)?

'Let's run down the gamut of American wars.'

Actually, I also meant cold wars you country's waged.

The USA waged the WWII also with the purpose of grabbing something to itself during the post-war settlement.

'...preserving the sovereignty of South Korea...'

Really? I'm not sure.

'We were fighting alongside the South Vietnamese army to keep South Vietnam from becoming Communist, just like in Korea.'

So do you consider the USA to have been fighter for truth and justice? Very funny...

Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera... Only lame excuses. Though I understand why you are trying to justify your country...

'Wellington saved the world from Napoleon.'

I knew you would write something like that.
 
Good for peace. It needs to break out more often.
How do we stop something that seemingly has always been
and/or seemingly always will be? With more of it?
Subjegating others?


You seek to glorify the ancient Roman empire?
Or any empire for that matter?

It is empire in which there is no honor.
none. zero. zilch. not a drop.
It matters not how it was obtained.
Empire quite simply is others subjegated.
And that is a politically correct term for saying slaves.

Slavery, be it chattel or wage or whatever is bunk.

Far from being "left-wing buzzwords".

All empires fall. It is that simple. And we are all in this together
whether we like it or not. One might say that there will always
be empire and figure the only thing to do is defend it to the death
or switch sides when another looks to be winning. Rather than
kill for an idea (that might be a country or a powerful ruler's claim that those
resources over there [that really belong to those that live there] are his/our-really his- 'interests') or a dying regime,
why not do something positive?


For instance,
laugh next time some politicican says something so utterly absurd you'd
think he thinks you are dumb. Such as : America is the greatest force for good in history.
Serously. Whether they are left or right or athiest or jingoist, they are just sucking up. 'you voter are sooooooo good and smart and industrist and kind and cute and strong' yeah yeah yeah...
The politcians didn't read the footnotes in their high school history text book either.
 
2 GodEmperorLeto:

I do insist that most of the American and English politicians have both the Cold War mentality and Hitler mentality. I remember watching the documentary about the massacre of the Cossacks in Lienz, Austria. A man having Russian background was interviewed. He had worked in the English government (or smth like that) in the past. He said that many English politicians still had the opinion that the Russians are a primitive nation, i.e. they discoursed like Hitler in 'Mein Kampf'. He said that they thought that the Russians deserved to die and it had been okay that Stalin had killed 40 million Russians and Hitler had killed 20 million Russians. What is the population of Britain, Germany, France? By the way, Maggy Thatcher didn't want the population of Russia to be more than 30 million people.

Amazing! The German Nazism was beat. The American and the English one still exists.

Roosevelt and Churchill were stalwarts of Hitler. Damn it, sometimes I think that Stalin was a British agent who aimed at annihilating the Russians. Paranoia? I don't think so.

Mr Prominent Historian, have you heard about the massacre of the Cossacks that was an excellent example of Russophobia?

I don't want to retell it in my own words, hence I refer to:

Massacre of Cossacks at Lienz

'...The Cossack Corps of General Domanov, consisting of about 28,000 persons, including women and children, on leaving Italian territory in early May 1945, crossed over the mountain pass into Austria and set up camp in the valley of the river Drau.

The Staff of the Cossacks and a part of the administrative units were billeted within the city limits of the town of Lienz. The Cossack regiments (disarmed) camped on adjoining territory in tents, while the noncombatants, the aged, the women and children, found quarters in the camp Peggetz, about two miles outside the city.

The attitude of the British authorities towards the Cossacks was quite beyond reproach and even benevolent up to May 26th, and there was nothing to indicate the impending catastrophe. However, on that particular day two events took place which foreshadowed the imminent tragedy. Namely, a British truck pulled up before the Cossacks' Bank, and the soldiers, referring to orders from their superiors, demanded the keys to the strongboxes, locked them up, and, loading them on the truck, drove away to an unknown destination. The protest of the Director of the Bank, and his remonstration that the strongboxes contained but personal savings of the Cossacks, had no effect. According to the declaration of the Bank Director, those strongboxes had contained at that time about 6 million German Marks, and about as much in Italian Lire, all of which had been personal money of the Cossacks.

On the same day, a British officer came to the hotel where General Shkuro and four of his officers had been billeted, and ordered them to pack their belongings so as to move to other billets. When asked, "Which other billets," he answered, "Where your Staff will be."
Later on it became known that General Shkuro and his officers had been moved to Spittal camp and kept there behind barbed wire.

It is important to note that simultaneously a British order had been read, according to which all Cossacks were to receive increased rations and, in fact, were to receive full British rations, which fact had considerably lulled any suspicions there might have been among the Cossacks, and had made it easier for the British to carry out their intentions.

The pleasure of receiving increased rations lasted but a short while. The next day, May 27th, at about 10:00 A.M., the British ordered all officers to turn in their pistols which, so far, they had been permitted to keep. Scarcely anybody guessed the actual purpose of this disarmament. There were but a few who anticipated instinctively, or rather, subconsciously, something mysterious and evil taking place.

On the morning of May 28th all officers, military officials, and medics were ordered to report at 1:00 P.M. to the square before the Staff billets, to be moved in trucks according to directives from the British General.

The Town Commander of Lienz, the British Major Davis, declared that the luggage should not be taken, as everybody was supposed to be back in three or four hours. This declaration was taken at its face value, nearly all had reported and were driven away. But, actually, as soon as the truck convoy, carrying over 2,000 officers and officials, headed by General Krasnov, got under way, it was surrounded by British tanks and escorted to its destination.
Guarded in this manner, everybody was brought into Spittal camp, which was surrounded by several stockades of barbed wire, and was strongly patrolled by the British.

Twenty-four hours later, all these unfortunate prisoners were transported into the Soviet Zone and were handed over to the Soviets. Only five persons were able to escape by a miracle. Numerous camp inmates had committed suicide, numerous others were killed by the guards while attempting an escape, while some had been executed on the way to the Soviet Zone, and it is unknown to this day exactly how many reached the Soviet Union.
In the evening of May 29th, British trucks equipped with loud speakers drove up to the tent camp Peggetz, where the Cossack regiments were camping, and announced that everybody had to get ready to be voluntarily repatriated into the Soviet Union. The British repeated this announcement on May 30th and May 31st.

Everywhere the unanimous reaction of the Cossacks had been to refuse, and to emphasize their protest they declared a hunger strike and hoisted black banners. When British supply trucks rolled up as usual to certain distribution points, there was nobody to accept the rations and, having dumped the food on the ground, they drove away. No Cossack touched that food.

On the morning of June 1st the Cossacks of the Peggetz camp had decided to unite in prayer to God, maybe for the last time. For this purpose an altar was erected on the camp square and a crowd of thousands of aged, of women and children, gathered around. Cadets, as if to protect them, formed an outer ring, holding hands. Black banners were flying from every barrack.

This picture was deeply moving and awesome at the same time. No human nerves could have endured to watch this multitude kneeling, intensely praying, and bitterly weeping.
It was during this Liturgy that the British surrounded the camp area on three sides with tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns. The fourth side remained free: there was the deep and swift Drau river forming a natural barrier. Together with the tanks there appeared trucks and, about 150 to 200 yards away, on the railroad there pulled up a long train of freight cars, waiting for the victims, the Cossacks.

The British waited awhile. Then, seeing that the people did not discontinue their prayers, they fired a volley into the air, charging at the same time into the defenseless people who had sat down on the ground, embracing one another, and refusing to board the trucks.

Now there began a beastly, brutal, and inhuman bloodshed, a massacre of innocent human beings. They hit them with gunbutts, causing an indescribable panic. Soul-piercing screams filled the air. In this inconceivable cataclysm many were trampled to death, mainly children.
Whoever was able to do so put up a desperate defense as long as he had any strength left.
It was only the unconscious, many of them with broken limbs, whom the British were able to grab and dump like logs on their trucks filled with bodies.

When already on the trucks, some Cossacks, regaining consciousness, had jumped off. They were beaten until they fainted and were thrown on the trucks again. The cadets put up the fiercest resistance. They defended not only themselves, but did everything humanly possible to aid the women, the children, and the aged to escape imprisonment, repatriation, and their eventual doom in the USSR.

Numerous Cossacks and their wives committed suicide on that day, preferring death rather then deportation to a barbarous country which had once been Russia, our Fatherland.
Semiconscious, blood-soaked, and heavily wounded - that is how they filled the death train.
For unknown reasons the "Honorable Authority" had decided to give a respite, and the next voluntary transport "home" with respective victims was scheduled to take place on June 3rd. This respite saved the lives of many Cossacks and their wives.

During the night from June 1st to June 2nd there began the second act of the Cossacks' tragedy: the local population began to ransack the possessions of the Cossacks. Like black ravens who gather at the smell of fresh blood, the Austrians now looted the property of the Cossacks by the carload.

During these very days, and with equal procedures, the 15th Cossack Corps, consisting of 18,000 men, had been handed over to the Soviets near the town of Judenburg. Of this multitude there survived only 10 officers and 50 to 60 Cossacks who had broken the guards' cordon by using hand grenades, and who saved themselves by hiding in the nearby woods.

That is how, on May 29th, June 1st, and June 3rd, 1945, 45,000 Russians had been handed over to suffer violent retaliation, by close cooperation on the part of those governments of foreign powers, for whose integrity and interests the Russian Nation had shed its blood and had won victories in World War I.

At present the Peggetz camp is abandoned and has disappeared. Only in one of its comers there are, even now, as a momento of the Cossacks' tragedy, some forgotten graves of victims, with small, weather beaten crosses.

A future historian will pass an unbiased verdict on this bitter tragedy, a verdict on those representatives of "Proud Albion" who have disgraced the ruler of the seas in the past, and who are not worthy to call themselves contemporaries of civilized mankind.

Losses in personnel as great as had been suffered by these two units, namely that of General Domanov and the 15th Cossack Corps, in the course of a couple of days, in conditions of a finished war, have no precedent in Russian military history.

Within these units there had been representatives of the Don Cossacks, and they had formed the main cadres. However, there had been also Cossacks and their wives from other Cossack armies.

Within the 15th Cossack Corps there had been a number of compatriots who were not Cossacks.

Among the slain were heroic warriors of the former Army of the Russian Empire during World War I, and the leaders of the White Cossacks in the years of the Civil War: General Ataman P.N. Krasnov, the Generals Shkuro and Prince Sultan-Girei-Klytch, and others...'

By the way, most of the Cossacks were not the citizens of the USSR. Many of them emigrated from Russia after or during the Revolution. The Cossacks didn't kill any British or American soldier. The English authorities knew that the USSR would kill the survivors. (The USSR killed them indeed.) Nevertheless, the British did what they did...

NECESSARILY READ THIS:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp

Find out more about the incident in Lienz.

So I do insist that the USA victimises the world and is going to enslave it. The American politicians (as well as the English ones) are hypocrites. Mr Historian, admit that Monroe doctrine is a racist doctrine. If you do, I shall think that you are good historian and analyst.

The US forces in any country reveal terroristic plans of the USA. Please, don't trust the American soldiers and politicians. Say them: 'Get out of my country!'
 
By the way!

GodEmperorLeto said:
World War II (1941-1945): We fought this war because the Japanese and Germans declared war on us. By the way, this, again, was already tearing up Europe. And we were isolationist before and didn't want to get involved.



By the way, I forgot to ask you commenting on the following articles.

You are a historian. So I wonder to know your opinion. The articles are

about the WWII and Pearl Harbour.

Here they are:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291a.asp
 
Why couldn't Australia and the British occupy Japan together with the USA
just after the war? Once again; why this difference between Japan and Germany, while they were both the enemies during World War Two?

Because, US didn't allow them to do so. What was most important to US was China just after the war. They didn't think that Japan had become a contry which had such an economical power today Japan has.
 
Of all the posts on Okinawa, this seemed the most neutral to post an article by a US GI who was there in the early 70s....

JPRI Occasional Paper No. 36, June 2006
A Wild Start: Okinawa in the 1970s
By David R. Crews

In 1970, when I arrived on the Island of Okinawa, I had enough cash in my pocket to buy an Asahi (Honeywell in the states) Pentax Spotmatic Camera, with one Pentax Lens, during my second trip off post. At that time, the Spotmatic was the most popular camera among professional photographers around the world.

http://www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op36.html
 

Eh....I don't think so. If China and Russia and those hostile nations surrounding America join forces together, then USA will be defeated militarily. Although China still has a long way to go in their military upgradings but the commies have man-power while Russia has always been good at missile tech.
 


If it came to that the crazies that run the US empire might just use their nukes
rather than lose their power.
 
Who wants to lose the soil that he have got ,in which he flew lots of blood

I am not a dreamer. I think we Japanese have to know that this era is the US's. Just like Rome in the world histry. Japan can not act as a main actor in this era. (We may act as a supporting actor.) We don't have any choice but we obey the US. Anyway we don't have a will that leads to be isolated in the world. The US has many faults,but we have more. It is the worst that we make the space of the power. It must cause to the war.
 
The US has many faults,but we have more.


I disagree. All countries, peoples, & societies (as well as individuals) have faults. Some seemingly worse.

I think, if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.
Therefore, personally, and being from the states, I would say the US has possible the most faults. Even if it were that one: attempting to maintain top by force, violence, and/or other dirty means.


Maybe someday we can have equal relationships with all people/s.
I don't know how we can get their other than the means should probably equal the ends or else the ends are not worth getting to.
I don't know. I'm no angel.

Maybe even countries (the 'state') themselves are a fault?
 
Japan spend much on military!

For those who didn't know Japan spends around 51 billion USD per year for military despite being an aggressor during WW2. Now compare how much Germany spends at the same time. It is less than the half!

Now Japan and the US are accusing China of spending so much on military.
Sorry but 40 billion USD is even less than Japan and the US spends 430-480 billion USD at the same time. Russia ranks 2nd with 100 billion USD, but it is also the biggest country in square meters and China having the biggest population with over 1.3 billion citizens.

Arms race will never end with under such circumstances and I think it is human nature to have the attitude and ambition to be superior to others.

The strong ones want to maintain strength while the weak ones want to gain.
That's nothing new and maybe we all should just relax about the military build-ups a bit


very well said!
It doesn't matter which country or people we are talking. We are all human, and whether a nation behaves defensively or offensively depends on the social circumstances like wealth, ideology etc. but the core remains the same.
We all have good and bad sides like the YingYang principle.
 
Last edited:
Administrations come and go ツ… but the geopolitical realities of the world remain.

If America were to withdraw from japan and the pacific and other areas of the world the vacuum would soon be filled by other powers contending for dominance . The pacific rim could become a volatile place very quickly.
Japan has had a really good deal by having America provide its security. Not only does America provide japan's security but it maintains stability in the entire region.

One of the biggest problems with america's war in iraq is that it has undermined long term stability in the middle east and damaged the ability of America to form a consensus among other nations and plan for stability in that region.

The planners for post war japan and asia were very wise. The peace and stability of the entire region over 60 years should not be taken for granted. It could easily disintegrate.

Some people say that america has no business being the policeman of the world. These are usually the same people that criticize america for not being "involved enough" in places like sudan and uganda.
 

Sounds to me like you want to usher in the kingdom of heaven on earth sukatto.

I am more practical. I think a world without force is a world which has never existed, and never will exist. And that if we try to eliminate it, things will be even worse than they are now.

The idea of ツ"equal relationshipsツ" doesn't work in families or societies or anywhere else. Some of the greatest crimes in the history of man have been committed by societies which presumably were trying to make everyone equal. ツ"Each according to his ability and each according to his needツ" is very high minded but is was cover for some of the worst tyranny that ever existed in the history of man.

The genius of the founding fathers of america was in not being naive about the nature of man. They just assumed that there would be bad apples and maniacs thirsting for power. In fact they pretty much operated on the assumption that man is a scoundral. But they were light years ahead of the naivette of the socialists and the communists and in real terms this meant less crime, less blood, less violence.

Man has this dream of the "kingdom of heaven on earth" and perfect equality and cooperation among people ... but I think it is a delusion when it comes to geo politics and everything else. It has certainly thus far shown itself to be a delusion and no society that has ever tried to organize itself by these principles has been sucessful.

I am a firm believer in hierarchy, even when we try to abolish it we find that it is still there. I simply want to make sure that the wisest and the very best are on top because in that way everyone benefits. When they are not, everyone suffers.
 
if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.

Let me clear things up here.
If a A attacked B then perhaps B's use of force might be justifiable.
International law, which the US has signed many international treaties including laws that make the crime against peace illegal, a war of agression, and under the Nuremberg Principles constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow.

If one found themselves "on the top", and let's be conservative here, acting withing the existing legal framework. Being conservative, no need to invent any new law or theory on this stuff. Being conservative if one were attacked they would have the right to use force in response. Acting non-conservatively one might use 'other dirty means' such as invent one's own 'law' for themselves being arrogant and supremacist about it all, be belligerent, attack whomever they felt like and commit war crimes. from which all other war crimes follow.


the rule of law and/or democracy might seem like a pie-in-the-sky kingdom of heaven theory, but we don't give up trying to better our understanding and practice of it. Well, many havn't.


The early Soviet Union proved that the ideals it supposedly stood for could not be forced on from above.
Iraq is showing likewise for democracy. democracy is not top-down by definition anyway.

So maybe you want a democratic (adjective) political system (the other one above is, of course an economic system). Chalmers Johnson says South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan "achieved democracy from below", so maybe they are truer democracies than say, the US?

He also says
In South Korea and the Philippines, mass movements fought against oppressive American imposed and supported dictators
It is that type of "force & violence or other dirty means" I am thinking of, that is quite well documented in many places, that the US gov't is in fault.
And hypocritical since they always claim to be supporting 'democracy'.


Just because something seemingly always has been - 'violence or force', does not mean it always will be. How many individual people go through their lives without or doing minimal violence? I'm sure few have not killed a mosquitoe or ant...

I will not try to argue that heirarchy does not exist. I would lose for sure.
Just one example: There is of course, a heirarchy of skills. A novice baker has less skills than a baker who has been making pies all her life. But that does not mean the 'master' baker should have all power over the novice baker/student. The 'master' baker should not have the power to order the 'student' to say, do x-rated stuff with them. An obvious abuse of power/knowledge of baking. What would happen if a student's skills were to gain such as to seemingly exceed the skills of the master? Would the 'master' attempt to sabotage the student's goods? Wouldn't that 'master' baker be a jerk? Or if they used violence or other such dirty handed means to ensure their position? Would they be some sort of total piece of toilet flushings?



back to the title of the string:

I don't understand this "fill the vacuum of power" thing.
That it would be filled by someone if the US ended their occupation of Okinawa and/or Japan and/or East Asia, since the cold war has been far over.
It's as if a removal of US tanks and planes and ships from countries X, Y, & Z, this would make some other country 'M' say to themselves, "hey, let's go put our tanks and planes and ships in countries X, Y, & Z".
I do not understand why someone thinks country 'M' would automatically do that. Just because country 'A' wants to maintain over 700 known/acknowledged bases in over 130 different countries doesn't mean countries 'G', 'S', & 'M' want anything similar to it.

I maintain that country 'A' wants to maintain that for economic reasons.
not only what the late & former US prez/general Dwight Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", so pervasive that individual huge military contractors have parts factories in all 50 states so they can argue they need to keep the war economy to keep jobs,

but also to prevent other countries from verying away from a corporate based global economy. the alternative of which does not equal communism or socialism, since corporations are legal entities, are different from 'regular' businesses, and not any sort of 'natural' occurring thing - the corporation is legally constructed. countries that reject foreign corporations in their country or even the corporate legal construct altogether are given some sort of derogatory label and viewed by US (and other corporate elites around the world) as enemies to 'freedom', even though the corporate form itself constructs legal privileges such as limited liability. limited liability is not a right, but a privilege. should you or i have limited liability for stealing from a store or killing someone? no. it's not a right, but a privilege.


US maintainance of bases in Japan helps to protect these privileges from local justice or democracy movements from below around the globe.
It is not China that is a threat to the United States, but 1) war that is a threat to us all, and 2) a false democracy that is really about ensuring privilege under the guise of equality and freedom.


That's rather long-winded, I know,
but i hope it shows that i am not delusioned by any false hope
of a Soviet Union model. But nor am i delusioned into thinking there
is anything remotely close to honor present in the existance of empire.
The DIS-honor of empire is so great that it negates into a black hole and
into an infinate number of continuous black-holes any other possibly existing honors that one might imagine to exist otherwise.

Futhermore,
Iraq is NOT a smudge on the screen.
It is a continuation of what US gov'ts do and have been doing for decades.
The thing with the Bush regime is that it is so blatant and obvious and they are horrible at p.r. Other US administrations are just more subtle about it all.
Ever hear of Iran/Contra?


Or Clinton, a list
Don't look back

or Kosovo specific:
The New Military Humanism book review
Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service
Pages from the Liberals' War


'truth is the first casualty of war'
Time for peace, empire is wrong and war cannot be trusted
 
I am a firm believer in hierarchy,
Or a much shorter response.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct to assume
that
you don't believe in democracy?

there's been times of relatively little heirarchy.
no reason we can't do this some more


ツ"I want a revolution that changes the very nature of how power is structured and perceived, that challenges all systems of domination and control, that nurtures the empowerment of individuals and the collective power we can wield when we act together in solidarity.ツ"
–Starhawk, US activist and writer
 
Last edited:

I do not believe nor disbelieve in democracy. Democracy has its strengths and its weaknesses.

But even in a democracy there is hierarchyツ… there is no way to eliminate it.
The surest way to ruin a great basketball team or a great symphony orchestra would be to demand that everyone should be given an equal voice in governing them and being a part of them.

You can apply the same concept to a society. Trying to make everyone equal leads to a shared mediocraty and would ultimately lead to a dissolution of the society. What happens however is that someone always steps in to "govern the unruly mass" in the name of equal rights and social justice ... ie., Stalin and Mao. And even as throats are being slit, high minded, idealistic, and pompous phrases are being trumpeted in the streets.

To try to eliminate power and hierarchy is to misunderstand the very nature of living organisms. Organisms are either healthy or they are sick. Our society, for all of its freedoms and so called humanitarianism, is one of the sickest societies in the history of man. This is in large part because the organizing principles of our society and culture are insufficent. We have given men plenty of freedom ... but most of them don't know what to do with it.

It is in the nature of our democracy that almost all the wrong people gain power.

ツ"Do not make equal, what is unequalツ" (Nietzcshe)
 
Last edited:
I'm not big on sports analogies. sorry.
divisions, win, dominate.
Emphasize the some of the worst aspects of human nature.
some of the aspects. other aspects are caring, solidarity, others...
which you can see in a father not stealing his child's food of the plate,
and nationalism is like a form of solidarity.



Stalin, Mao...,
that's why you really can't impose equality.
Not in SU, not in US. - witness it took 100 years after the ending
of legal slavery for people to really start to get some respect with
the civil rights movement along with their media personalities.
A MLKjr only shows up when there are all sorts of regular people doing things beyond such a media spotlight.


high minded, idealistic, and pompous phrases
Similar to what US gov't is doing now while doing almost Orwellian opposites.
As well as previous administrations of the US. For ex: Madeline Albright said,"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Thus making them (us gov't officials) pompous.


heirarchy does exist. one cannot deny this.
Maybe it's more like which heirarchies are legitimate, and which are illegitimate?
The slave and slave master.
clearly illegitimate. at least we now recognize now (at least in the US)

Now, with the distance of reality, the vast majority of people would place that heirarchy on its head and say the slave master was total scum and the slave being the ones that had honor.

That might call into question the idea of force.
If force has to be used to enforce its existance, is the heirarchy legitimate?




Anyway,
How does any of this fit into the idea of
the US deoccupying lands in Japan/and Okinawa.
I guess the US seeks to enforce itself on the top of some ficticious totem pole by force. Which is an illegitimate heirarchy in my eyes. empire, for example, has no honor.
 
Last edited:

Well, I included a symphony orchestra analogy too. In an orchestra hierarchy is not a dirty word. Men do not mind submitting to something as long as that thing has their respect. For example, men in the military generally have better working relationships with their superiors than civilian workers do with theirs. This is in large part because the civilian employers are usually somewhat contemptable men who do not earn respect or loyalty. Ironically, the feelings of freindship, caring and solidarity that you value are more present among military men than among civillians in the western world.

Yes, the current administration has used orwellian propaganda and every other cheap trick it could get its hands on. This group of "conservatives" in my opinion, has probably done more damage to american interests and world prospects than any other administration in the last 100 years.

I disagree with your analysis of sports but I think you are fairly typical of people who think the way to ennoble man is by removing conflict from his life. 1st., It cannot be done. 2nd ., even if conflict and suffering were removed from man's life, man would soon become contemptable because of it.
The white heat of suffering and conflict is the furnace out of which the best things grow. The real horror of the modern world is not suffering or conflict but boredom, ennui, and sterility.

There are plenty of slaves in our world today, we just don't call them that anymore. 1 in 6 indians in India is born to the lowest caste, he is a slave from birth to death. What is a Chinese factory worker who makes $40 a month, if not a slave ? And the lives of millions of Americans too are not much better than the lives of slaves, present and past. We just use a different terminology to cope with some of the harder realities of life which chaff against our humanitarian illusions.

It may be popular in some circles to identify with slaves. The ancient greeks believed that slaves were not human because if they were human they would kill themselves or find some way to end their slavery rather than be a slave. My only advice to anyone is to see to it that you don't end up as a slave to some narrow ideology, to some pig of a boss, to some bit*ch of a woman, or to your own eternal timidity and fear. In that way, and only only that way, do we strike at the heart of the problem.

It would be a terrible mistake for us to give up our presence in the world. Other forces would simply rush in to fill the vacuum – that is a certainty. Japan benefits tremendously from america's presence in the region. Japan could ask america to leave but most japanese politicians understand that this would not be advantageous for japan.

We both want to see a better world, and we both want to see man do better. We simply have very different ideas on how this can be achieved. My feeling is that many of the ideas that you have create circumstances which produce the very opposite of what you intend.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the best compromise is to have American Nikkeijin like Lt. Ehren Watada to station in his own homeland of Okinawa. Now I say that he could be used for his fluent Japanese language skills. American Japanese should be used to fill those roles, so they can be good cultural brokers. The British did this with Canadians, using men with British ancestry to station in England during WWII to be on standby during the Mackenzie King administration.

If Generals such as Eric Shinseki who is a Nikkei 34th Chief of Staff could rise that high, such negotiations could have been possible.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…