U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye?
- Thread starter thomas
- Start date
hanachan
先輩
- 10 Mar 2007
- 265
- 16
from the situation of occupied
- 18 Jan 2005
- 11,682
- 3,643
Your recognition is wrong.
The times when the Allied Forces occupied Japan,
Because there were the Japanese cabinet and legislature,
Japan was a limit sovereign state.
The SF agreement is a formal war conclusion agreement.
Japan is not doing the declaration of independence.
Flanker
Scrapped.
- 15 Apr 2006
- 35
- 0
But there's still U.S. Bases there. Japan will be independent when the last U.S. base is closed down.
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Just because the U.S. has a military presence there does not mean they are not independent. That U.S. force has zero impact on Japanese national government. They dictate no terms. They are pretty much there as a coaling-station for naval forces, and an advance point of force-projection in East Asia. In other words, its easier to strike at enemies in East Asia from Okinawa than from Hawaii. We are not an occupying force. Hell, we are not even an occupying force in Iraq, we barely have enough troops there to be policing it, and it is costing us in lives and in tax dollars.
I'm not sure what you mean here.caster51 said:
Do you mean that you think Japan should develop hegemonic influence in East Asia, rather than direct territorial control? The pattern that the United States developed in order to combat the Soviets and the Chinese was similar to the hegemonic empire that the Romans had during the Early Empire (the Julio-Claudian dynasty). In other words, we tried to cultivate client-states that would buffer us from the Soviets and the Chinese. The Soviets, in turn, did the same thing with the Warsaw Pact in Europe (although they had much more direct control over the East European governments than we did NATO or our East Asian allies).
The problem with the client-state system is that the vassals have to see the empire as a big brother, a protector, and a friend. If they don't, the system breeds resentment, which is what many nations feel for the United States right now.
As for the Korean War and Vietnam Wars, I consider both of them to be absolute failures. The Korean War was never won, and technically has still been going on. Vietnam was won in the field, but was lost at home, because the American populace was against it. Iraq is shaping up to be opposed at home in a similar manner. The American populace and the polarized government are preventing the military from escalating the conflict and investing enough manpower into the region in order to stabalize it.
We get most of our technology from guys like Blackwater, in Virginia. Most military technology is developed at home. American mercenary companies (like Blackwater and Executive Solutions) are better equipped, even then our own military (mostly due to Clinton's budget-cuts in the 1990s). The problem is, these companies are too darn small.hanachan said:
Certain groups in Japan are developing robotics that could have definitive military advantages. If mechs come out in the next century and are viable military options, I don't imagine the U.S. would have a problem buying units from Japanese companies.
nocomment1
先輩
- 16 May 2007
- 30
- 0
its too bad japan got their military taken away :sorry:
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
It wasn't taken away, it was severely reduced. And, in case you haven't read enough of this thread, many of Japan's neighbors don't want Japan to rebuild their military.
Besides, maybe you should do some research into things like the May 15th Incident and other political affairs during the 1920s and 30s in which the military effectively took control of the government, with the help of zaibatsu. The pre-war history of Japan makes it very evident that perhaps dismantling their military (at least for a period of time) was a good thing, especially for their government.
EmperorHirohito
Who is Number One?
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,548
- 40
I have voted No.
My reason is simple, Japan is at risk from North Korea and in the event of any unprovoked attack, it is better to have someone to fight with you than against you.
My reason is simple, Japan is at risk from North Korea and in the event of any unprovoked attack, it is better to have someone to fight with you than against you.
DangerousBob
先輩
- 27 Nov 2006
- 43
- 0
Seeing how Japan really doesn't have an offensive military, the USA basically acts as their military if they need it.
EmperorHirohito
Who is Number One?
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,548
- 40
I would add that following the recent missile tests done by North Korea and the missiles landing in the Sea of Japan within the last seven days, there is even more reason as to why American forces should stay in Japan.
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
They are changing their Constitution so that they can have an offensive military again.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
aren't all militaries supposed to be not for offensive purposes? so they want to be, what? to use their military for other than defensive purposes? i.e. to commit war crimes? which is what offensive war is, by definition.
the US is where it is, over 700 military bases in over 130 different countries for imperial purposes, says this non-NKorean gov't supporter, and non-communist.
how difficult is it for people living in Japan to make the connection that it is only logical for a country like NKorea to want to aquire a deterant to the beast that invades countries that obviously did not have such weapons, Iraq...
and has put the world on notice that it is their policy to invade any country they see fit.
Last edited:
D
diceke
Guest
The new amended constitution may allow collective defense, meaning even when Japan is not the direct victim of an attack, Japan will provide military assistance to another country (i.e. the USA) under attack. Collective defense involves risks, if the US is at war, Japan will also get pulled into war, and will have to fight a war that is not even her own. It's just like another WW, this time allied with the US.
The best defense is a good offense, some say. Pre-emption for one country is an offense for another.:souka:
Arc Light
Home...For now...
- 21 Jun 2004
- 125
- 4
Without reading into all the other posts in this thread, I just want to put this out there. This is just my opinion, so take it as that.
I have always felt that being stationed in Japan or Korea while serving in the US Military ( Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines), should be optional, not mandatory or forced. ALot of the problems that arise from stupid/drunk AMerican military come from people who don't want to be there in the first place. Before I left for Korea in 2005, I heard alot of soldiers asking the recruits if they drank, and if they were going to Korea, they will be doing a lot of it. I heard the same thing back in my days in the Marines regarding Japan. That's the WRONG attitude. The only thing I hated about being in Korea, was being in the Army in Korea. It's a beautiful place as long as you're not military, because you're not bound by ridiculous restrictions, and that kills it for alot of people. The same goes for Japan. Put people there who want to be there, and the attitude toward American Military presence would likely do a 180* flip.
I'm not claiming to be the saviour of anti-US discontent, but I will make the claim that had it not been for me damn near dragging a couple of buddies from the barracks on saturday mornings and showing them what Korea was like outside of where we lived, they would have been miserable. Some of them volunteered to stay another year, just because they liked it there. The same thing happened in Japan, only it was too late for me to extend there, but someone drug me from my barracks room and took me out around the island of Okinawa, and I fell in love with a beautiful Japanese girl in the process. I miss those days...
Anyways, I think that if they made Asian tours of duty optional instead of forced, things would be different there. There's an entire generation here who would love to visit Japan or Korea, and the US Dept. of Defense can give them a free tour for a year, if they use it right.
That's my veiw. Thanks.
I have always felt that being stationed in Japan or Korea while serving in the US Military ( Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines), should be optional, not mandatory or forced. ALot of the problems that arise from stupid/drunk AMerican military come from people who don't want to be there in the first place. Before I left for Korea in 2005, I heard alot of soldiers asking the recruits if they drank, and if they were going to Korea, they will be doing a lot of it. I heard the same thing back in my days in the Marines regarding Japan. That's the WRONG attitude. The only thing I hated about being in Korea, was being in the Army in Korea. It's a beautiful place as long as you're not military, because you're not bound by ridiculous restrictions, and that kills it for alot of people. The same goes for Japan. Put people there who want to be there, and the attitude toward American Military presence would likely do a 180* flip.
I'm not claiming to be the saviour of anti-US discontent, but I will make the claim that had it not been for me damn near dragging a couple of buddies from the barracks on saturday mornings and showing them what Korea was like outside of where we lived, they would have been miserable. Some of them volunteered to stay another year, just because they liked it there. The same thing happened in Japan, only it was too late for me to extend there, but someone drug me from my barracks room and took me out around the island of Okinawa, and I fell in love with a beautiful Japanese girl in the process. I miss those days...
Anyways, I think that if they made Asian tours of duty optional instead of forced, things would be different there. There's an entire generation here who would love to visit Japan or Korea, and the US Dept. of Defense can give them a free tour for a year, if they use it right.
That's my veiw. Thanks.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Sorry,
this sounds kind of stupid, like i'm so smart. lame of me, of course.
Maybe as hard as it is for US citizens.
Governments always need an external enemy to take the public's eyes
off of domestic problems and away from watching the powerful (& rich).
I'm not sure the media situation in Japan, but in the US over 95% of
all media: tv, newspapers, book & magazine publishers, movies, radio stations, etc. are owned by something like 4-6 huge corporations. Thus Phil Donahue, probably the lone commentator voice against the Iraq war in the major media before in invasion took place, was booted off of MSNBC because they were afraid of ratings.
And if you take a look at guests, the greatest proportion are white males. (straight I might add).
Last edited:
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Pre-emptive war would not be offensive necessarily.
Pre-emptive is if there were troops actually lining up to cross the border to attack and the future defensive country attacks first.
Preventive war on the other hand, is if you think some day in the future someone might attack you. Clearly offensive.
And offensive war is still a war crime.
The latter one is what Bush did in Iraq,
since Iraq was not gearing up to attack anyone and was not involved in any attack against the US.
Arc Light
Home...For now...
- 21 Jun 2004
- 125
- 4
Another cause for trouble from US troops in Asia is the fact that the Army considers Korea a hardship tour, meaning families are not authorized to live there by government means. The Marines consider Okinawa a hardship tour, at least they did back in '92. And I haven't seen anyone mention anything about how US Troops contribute to crimes such as prostitution and drugs, as well as human trafficking, but it's all the result of leadership failure from the higher ranks.
They're basically tossing gasoline on the fire. WHen I was in Korea, we had to submit a request for a pass if we wanted to go outside the immediate area surrounding our base. It took three days to process the paperwork, so you had to have it in by tuesday if you wanted to go out on saturday. The first 30 days we were there in Korea, we weren't allowed to leave the base for any reason. So if you were new to Korea, all you could do was go get drunk. If you didn't have your pass in on time, all you could do was get drunk. And 99% of all "international incidents" were caused by alcohol abuse.
ANd then there's the sub-standard living conditions for US Troops on bases...
They're basically tossing gasoline on the fire. WHen I was in Korea, we had to submit a request for a pass if we wanted to go outside the immediate area surrounding our base. It took three days to process the paperwork, so you had to have it in by tuesday if you wanted to go out on saturday. The first 30 days we were there in Korea, we weren't allowed to leave the base for any reason. So if you were new to Korea, all you could do was go get drunk. If you didn't have your pass in on time, all you could do was get drunk. And 99% of all "international incidents" were caused by alcohol abuse.
ANd then there's the sub-standard living conditions for US Troops on bases...
Arc Light
Home...For now...
- 21 Jun 2004
- 125
- 4
heh...anywhere, really, but Japan and Korea could be the worst. Asbestos-contaminated buildings, Housing/barracks that's falling apart, poor water quality, all the while officers live in mansions by comparison.
I was on Camp Casey in Korea, and I was at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, where I have an old friend there again now. And I probably shouldn't blend Okinawa with Japan, because for all I know, military life there could be all peaches and cream...
I was on Camp Casey in Korea, and I was at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, where I have an old friend there again now. And I probably shouldn't blend Okinawa with Japan, because for all I know, military life there could be all peaches and cream...
Last edited:
KirinMan
後輩
- 23 Jan 2007
- 2,173
- 68
Arclight I dont know the last time you were here in Okinawa but believe me the Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen here in Okinawa definetly do not live in sub-standard housing. Their living quarters are heaven compared to the days of open squadbays. I know I lived through it.
By comparison they live in hotel live accomodations, if that is substandard then I have no idea what "standard" is.
Arc Light
Home...For now...
- 21 Jun 2004
- 125
- 4
I can vouch for Korea, because I was just there. The Army barracks there as well as here in Oklahoma, are like living in a public housing project. When I was in Okinawa, our barracks were like prison cells, without the bars. They may have improved, but according to my Marine buddy over there now, they still suck. By comparison, the Air Force guys had it made.
And according to the Veterans Administration, they're still contaminated with asbestos.
And according to the Veterans Administration, they're still contaminated with asbestos.
