Forum Post: Shoud we accept U.S. base in OKINAWA?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 4:21 a.m. EST by daran
(7)
from 千代田区, 東京都
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Okinawa,1% of populality in japan.they've been forced to accept U.S.base for 66years.Now Obama and Panetta are putting pressure on part-time prime minister Noda.The voice of Okinawa people is so clear,but doesn't reach anyone.Troops should be ordered to evacuate only in Iraq,Afghanistan?Does anyone care about this? see "PROBLEMS OF U.S. MILITARY BASES IN OKINAWA" http://www.jcp.or.jp/seisaku/gaiko_anpo/Okinawa.pdf also, please see beuty("chura"in okinawa words) of all small islands http://www.churashima.net/shimatabi/flash/natsuiro.html
I'm pretty sure we have had at least one base in Okinawa since WW II.
over 130 bases in Japan.about 50000 members are staying 18% of Okinawa main Island is used.now you're sure more
Lester R. Brown claims, a cut by one sixth of the global military budget (or one third of the US military budget) would suffice to tacke a plethora of social and ecological problems the world over. The Pentagon, that's where you all need to be.
Japan is going to spend about 1 billion yen on Fighter(FX).what is effective to cut the endress spiral of evil?
Japan should address its social and political problems FIRST before it EVER does anything about the military (which shall be needed in time.) I already outlined what I think needs to happen and I am curious as to why you have said absolutely nothing in response to what I said (and I would like a complete, honest answer; I want what you truly think.)
We should totally take that base out of Okinawa. And Japan should take care of it's own defense. Meaning it will have to vastly increase it's defense budget, which will take away from other budgets, like education and transportation.
Before I begin, take this to the best speaker of English you know. I have much to say.
Panetta says that the US is intent on staying in the Pacific, which, for the time being, we should. (Europe is another matter as the Western Atlantic is much more calm.) However, it is not wise or fair to allow the US to take all the risks. Such arrangements make it possible for some very nasty men in Washington to keep Futenma open in perpetuity. (If you want to get rid of Futenma, you have to find a way to defend yourself and technology alone will not save you: look at Germany during WWII. It had better technology than the United Kingdom and some of the US weapons....and it lost the war, they were destroyed in the spring of 1945. )
Do not worry about China, you say?-I would be terrified if I were you. They have a population of over a billion people, a lot of them under the age of 40. Japan, by contrast, has a low birthrate. The percent of the population that is old is increasing every year. Immigration rates are very low compared to other OECD nations. This means a lot of old people unable to defend Japan against invasion and too few young people able to protect their grandparents from getting their throats cut, killed like a pig at a butcher shop (肉屋で豚のように殺さ) Blowing up the nuclear power plants might actually make their job easier as all the Japanese will be dead and give China a clear path to taking over without resistance.
About fifteen years ago US Intelligence found a map made by the Chinese Army: it had information on territory China would like to reclaim after its "century of humiliation." it included the Korean peninsula, all of Japan, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam. This is very bad. Very very bad. If China were to attack Japan when she is weakened, there is a chance they will try to take over....and they will want REVENGE. They have been told since they were children that big bad Japan came over and raped thousands of women and tortured many more from roughly 1930-1945. This part is true. They have not been taught, however, that Japan has not shown any aggression towards anyone since 1945 and Yohei Kono (河野 洋平 ) apologized for the comfort women in 1993; the Japanese Prime Minister mentioned it as well a year later. All it would take would be for Beijing to rile up the brainwashed masses and millions of angry Chinese would try to destroy everything Japan has worked so hard for since 1945.
This is why Japan needs a standing army. And it cannot do that without first giving birth to more babies, and to start trusting foreigners more so they can settle in Japan and help boost the population growth.
It can't do that if a woman gets cursed at for trying to go back to work after being pregnant; Japan needs her to go back to work so the economy can get better, and so women everywhere have a better way to claim rights and get higher positions at work; that way it is not just men who can make their dreams come true, but women should be able to do that too (and it isn't always by pushing the baby carriage.) It can't do that if men are being treated like slaves by their bosses at work: every man deserves to go home at the end of the day, relax, and talk with his family. He does not deserve to be worked to death or denied pay that is rightfully his and the boss who abuses his position should be told by his entire staff (using these exact words) 割れたガラスの瓶を自分でアナルセックスする! Men should be judged by the content of their characters and as individuals, not for what they own or how much honor they have by having such an important job: (Unfortunately, a man of high rank is not necessarily moral or kind and usually has no humility or care for anyone other than himself. He needs to be taught a lesson that if you treat people badly they will eventually rebel and fight back and if it means beating the crap out of you for being an arrogant, cruel and vicious piece of shit, so it will be.
Kids also need a better world. Beating him for getting an incorrect answer on a test is wrong, and expecting perfection all the time is not realistic. Kids learn more from mistakes than from successes-so let them screw up!! And for Pete's sake, let him wear whatever shoes he wants to school and let him have his hair cut to whatever length he wants. He is 13. He has the rest of his life ahead of him, let him enjoy being young. The world shall not end.
Japan shouldn't fight against any country.Is it possible that defense oneself without fighting?Once Japan built a country in China in very very very bad way,and massacre chinese.as you know it was not only China.Japan should deserve whtat they deserve. uniforms helped me couldn't afford everyday fashion.
.Is it possible that defense oneself without fighting?
Sorry, but no. Diplomacy only works to an extent. If you want keep your freedom, you have to fight for it sometimes. Look what happened with Hitler during the same war: people who tried to negotiate with him often found themselves later taken over. In less than ten years, with him as Chancellor, Germany took over Hungary, Austria, Ukraine, and Poland. Most of these countries tried diplomacy...and lost their freedom and millions of lives. Britain on the other hand refused to negotiate and Winston Churchill said he would rather see every citizen die while fighting than let Hitler take over Britain. Because of his decision, Britain remained free and was never invaded. In fact, the soldiers went down in history as heroes.
uniforms helped me couldn't afford everyday fashion.---What? This makes no sense. Explain what you are trying to say.
As for the past, all is forgiven. The Japanese have showed no aggression towards anything (except maybe large tunas at the Tsukiji fish market) and most believe that fascism is wrong and the writings of the 1930s as craziness. The experiment with democracy in Japan has succeeded and prospered. Therefore, since the beliefs that got Japan in trouble the first time are unlikely to emerge again in the 21st century, an army and navy are a worthy investment towards defense.
My neighbour gave me used uniform.I was not rich enough.
Indirect democracy produced capital of greed. which is called succes.I'm not almighty,so I don't judge. life in Japan also is getting so hard for many people. this is the voice from inside of Japan.
Panetta says US committed to being Pacific power http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-stresses-us-role-pacific-praises-china-042512433.html Japan is going to spend 1trillion yen on F-35, Super Hornet F-18E/F Block II http://defense-update.com/20111023_japan-narrows-f-x-selection-to-f-35-f-18.html I considered above as a WSHING LIST in SHOCK DOCTRINE. Japanese mostly watch T.V. TV doesn't talk about defense issue openly. People are quite cunfused with radioactive pollution. We need to spend more money on sociaty specially in TOHOKU.
what I'm trying to say is why is economy depending on power?The power which makes weapon and war,stress to children. First of all, Okinawa doesn't belong to Japan.They do have original culture. And don' warry about China,if they attack Japan,54 NUCLEAR ＰＯＷＥＲ ＰＬＡＮＴ will blow up! and even China cannot be saved. And Even "Japanese" has roots in China.
Evil STOCK MARKETS. Those who playing money without care to all earnig little bit of money. Many Japanese workers have obsession specially to money. We've been watching "sex and the city" too much. Work and Money means to life for japanese,so when they loose one of the two ...committing suicide. Over 13years Over 30000people suicide each year. People lost meaning of life.so life(nature) is trying so hard to remind it. And people started movement on wall street,I couldn't find a word ,stop crying to see people fighting for their own life.also couldn' help contacting here with my pour English
Privately, I think that for now we keep a presence near Japan, but not necessarily on it. The problem really is the fact that Japan has a very low birthrate; nobody is having babies so a standing army to protect Japan is not an option unless Japan wants to turn to the Phillipines for help in that arena.
Japan should also consider the fact that China is growing increasingly militaristic. It has a grudge with Japan because of the Sino-Japanese Wars and because it has never let go of its "humiliation" over WWII (nobody has ever told the truth regarding Nanking to them and the textbooks in China display China as a perpetual victim.) It has a standing army that is huge-because they aborted or abandoned so many baby girls, there are a lot of men in China who shall never marry. Because the overwhelming preference in China is to have a son, a man born in 1987 now bears the responsibility of having to support his parents and grandparents on whatever salary he can get. These combined facts mean a lot of Chinese men in the military....not good for Japan...and given its proximity, not good for Okinawa, even dangerous.
New policy is needed on both sides. The solutions are quite simple:
1) Japan must institute a policy where a woman must not be pressured to give up her job if she gets pregnant and where discrimination against her for promotions and for hiring is forbidden; it is also to be encouraged that if a man wants tea in a business meeting, he gets up and gets it himself (behavior like this in the workplace often makes men think of women as servants rather than as equals and puts women at a disadvantage when trying to compete for high skill jobs like computers, finance, etc.) She will be able to sue the company and the employer anonymously if she wants and should be encouraged to do so, so these people can be punished. She also cannot be discriminated against if she has sued an employer in the past and must be judge on her aptitude and abilities alone. The goal is to make it easier for women to marry and start families. Peace at work, peace at home. (職場での平和 = 自宅での平和!)
2) Japan must institute new workplace laws. The work hours for a Japanese man (サラリーマン,) should be from 6 am to 7 pm. Any longer than this and he must be paid overtime or the company loses its license to operate. The practice of any underlings only getting to go home when the boss does should also be banned: in corporate Japan, it is unfair that employers treat their employees like they own them. A boss is just a boss; this is not the Shogun era and behaving like a feudal lord is nothing more than being a bully. Saying one is sorry for this type of behavior is not enough, and should result in the boss getting a large chunk of his salary taken away, fired, or even prosecuted. (this policy is to stop people being worked to death, 過労死, and so fathers can be home once in a while to be with their kids...and make more babies :) (自宅でパパ, 家族が成長することができます.)
3) Govt subsidies for daycare should be instituted in Japan so that Mom and Dad can go get junior on the way home from work without shame; grandparents should be encouraged to get on the train with a free fare so that they can go get junior and look after him in the afternoons (if the birthrate is to grow, it is going to need to adapt to the modern world and it is not fair to expect Mama to do everything, especially when jobs are needed so badly and there are plenty of elderly Japanese around to help out. so, 日本の祖父母や友人 = より多くの日本の赤ちゃんを作るのに役立ちます.
4) Corporal punishment in schools should be banned, 禁止体罰. Those caught doing it forfeit their right to be teachers or school administration. Beating a child does not make him smarter or more obedient, it just makes him frightened. Punishment for bad behavior should instead be physical labor, like planting the school cabbages or running. (Happy junior, happy home.)
5) The United States shall vacate Okinawa and build two or three artificial islands in the China Sea as part of a joint effort of Korea, Japan, and the Phillipines for military purposes. It shall be in the trusteeship of the US for fifty years at which point it then becomes part of the countries involved. Soldiers who wish to go to mainland Japan must take a ferry Japan provides (and can suspend or deny access to soldiers.)
5) The original statutes of 1945 should be renegotiated with the goal of Japan having its own standing army to defend itself, with a modern outlook on warfare. Trading secrets on missile defense shall be put to the test.
US should not be meddling in the affairs of other nations like some kind of big international police. US has over 300 army bases abroad. It's ridiculous. No nation should be allowed to have an army abroad, except if they are doing a legal war which itself shouldn't exist in the first place. If armies need to be stationed abroad for peacekeeping, then it should be compromised of many nations, not just one. One of the majors problems of US is its foreign policy and use of its army. You should look at Canada and other peaceful countries for a better example to follow.
over 130 bases in Japan.about 50000 members are staying 18% of Okinawa main Island is used.Even if Japan lost WW2,still could follow peaceful countries?
I don't understand. Do you mean this:
Even if Japan lost WW2, could it still be peaceful like the other countries?
Or do you mean:
Should Japan follow the path of Canada and others and is it possible for this to happen?
I'd be happy to pack up all my marbles and go home, especially in Europe. They've got the resources to take care of themselves; we don't live during the Cold War. But on the other hand, very few of these nations pour the cash into maintaining much of an army individually. They get to build their enormous social welfare programs because of the extra cash not spent on defense....and we pick up the tab. Greeeaat.
As for Asia, the best guardians of Asia are Asians...but herein lies trouble. East Asia is comprised of 9 nations aside from China whose interests do not always gel together and in terms of politics run the gamut from full democracies to cruel dictatorships. When you total up the population of these nations who are 18-44, it doesn't crack the sheer brute force of the CCP Armed forces. (And BTW, India has its own troubles right now with Pakistan and won't be as interested in the politics of the Pacific Ocean.) You also get inequalities in who can commit what financially and the treatment of soldiers: this is likely to cause squabbling.
Last, you forget history-remember the Trojan war? A whole bunch of city states were sworn to assist Menelaus in any quarrel or conflict (most likely this was a treaty rather than Homer's version) And so, a thousand ships and many lives were lost. In the modern era, this could mean an instant world war.
No matter, US has no business declaring itself the world's police and starting illegal wars. If armies are needed to keep things stable they should be from NATO or other such international groups.
BTW - Your first paragraph is ludicrous. US doesn't go around giving free help. You think US is in Japan because of some charity event. Give me a break, US only helps other nations when it has something to gain.
Fine. Go ask China what they think, and then remember they've been eyeing Taiwan, the Ryukyu Islands, and the Philippines for years. There's already been conflict in this arena with the Philippines and other ASEAN nations have been ringing up Leon Panetta, not Stephen Harper and certainly not Angela Merkel or Singh.
Second, I agree that pre-emptive attack is unnecessary and unconscionable. But I also think that if you have a freakishly big navy that keeps shipping lanes open, generally changes its policy to give much freer hand to the nations involved (another big thing on the US to do list,) and may be trying to keep history from repeating itself, then damn it, use it or be blamed for sitting on your hands while many people get slaughtered like pigs.
And BTW, I argued FOR Japan having its own army so it was less reliant on the US for help, dumbass. Personally, I just have no desire to see a rehashing of what the Imperial Navy did from 1930-1945, this time with a mandarin accent. And if you truly don't want the US there, fine-you do it. Or better yet, we do it your way, and find ourselves in a situation not too far removed from Menelaus's, this time against Russia, North Korea, China, the -stans, and whatever occupied territory China has taken in return for its "century of humiliation" and desire to recreate 5,000 years of glory. (Or do you prefer to also see Australia and India as being the last free territories in Asia where a land war may not only be impossible, but unwinnable?!)
Your missing my point. US can certainly use it's army, but it should be done under the umbrella of an international organization. Countries should not be allowed to go and post their armies wherever they want on their own terms. If some watch is needed to keep China honest, then do it with a whole bunch of other countries. When US decides to be the world's police everybody loses. Why do you think so many people are against US foreign politics?
I will say it again. Trojan War.
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We could just as easily find a coalition of armies going in ala a Nato operation and find ourselves in a situation not far removed from the Trojan War. With the US as the navy keeping those waters open, the other nations have the option of remaining neutral or ignoring the conflict (or even bypassing a conflict they cannot afford) rather than be sworn by treaty or pact to defend Taiwan or Japan or any of those places-I would have thought this lesson was learned during World War I.
Well, we differ in that I don't think US should do anything alone with their army on foreign soil. I think team efforts are much better. If the US started being a team player in this regard, I think the American image would be much improved. Imagine if the US government asked forgiveness for starting a war without the consent of UN and gave its word that in the future it always would operate as a team player. Nations should coordinate their efforts to solve the world's problems, not act alone like some kind of lone ranger. US is not the world's sheriff, and the more it pretends to be, the worse the US image will be in other countries. But yeah, I don't think Americans care too much how they're viewed outside their own borders. You've always been cowboys, and you probably always will be.
If you mean asking forgiveness for Iraq, definitely. I never supported any of that. And Bush belongs in jail with Cheney and the other crooks.
But I am thinking of what realistically can be done. If you want greater US cooperation on the world stage, then fine, by all means, you shall have it; it is more than warranted as is retreat from about half the military bases (we don't need that many.) But the bottom line is that coalitions sound great on paper, but military history shows them up as potential disasters.
PS-The UN has no real authority without some means of ratification by the various nations of the world; ipso facto it is a forum for world politics and has no real power to implement its resolutions. This is a simple statement of political fact, because if it did, there would be a holy hell of a lot less North Koreans being repatriated back to Pyongyang where they die horrible deaths, there would be no problems of first world nations endorsing the pollution of the third world, and the Security Council would be much bigger..and have AFRICAN states.
Coalitions can indeed be dangerous, but I believe lone states are even more dangerous. One problem with the UN is that it doesn't have enough countries involved amongst its ranks, and like you say, doesn't have enough political power. However, at least when something is decided amongst themselves, more than one country must account for what is going on. There is no perfect system at the end of the day. There are always cracks where corruption can creep in.
One problem, Thrasymaque-
When there is only one world government, who you gonna run to?
If you can name me one place to run to, then I'm sold on your idea. No takers? Not surprised.
It doesn't have to be one world government, but a consensus system between nations or groups of nations. I'm already running away from US and they have more than enough army power to blow the world 1000 times, so it can only be an improvement.
If the world worked like that, I promise you, little purple unicorns would fly out of my ass right now.