Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

[Derfel]

There are that kinda rebels anywhere, but most of the time, they're just lowlifes pissed about their low salary, lack of success or something, they just need a cause, any cause as long as it promises to destroy the present state they're in and rebuild the country in some wondrous way.
Sometimes rebels are justified, but in a prospering country like Japan there's no need for militarism.

[scorpion da black]

well, that is true, why would some one not like to be in japan?
it has grown to be an awesome country.
but some japanese people are not satisfied with what japan has become and wish it could respect traditions more...instead of being a country where people just emitate the west.
i know that from my interactions with many japanese on line

[Derfel]

Well one thing is for certain, only experience you gain (as a country) can preserve traditions in a civil way, in our open world that is. If you let someone take over that, it will either turn into neo-futurism, destroying everything old and rebuilding the whole thing, or radical conservationism enforced with some militarism too. Let the Japanese people come over that issue as time passes, after all in this case its them who are influenced by the west, and not the west forcing its ways on them.
The only thing that has to be dealt with in a quick manner is the flood of unnecessary English words in the language that have equivalents in Japanese.

[scorpion da black]

Well one thing is for certain, only experience you gain (as a country) can preserve traditions in a civil way, in our open world that is. If you let someone take over that, it will either turn into neo-futurism, destroying everything old and rebuilding the whole thing, or radical conservationism enforced with some militarism too. Let the Japanese people come over that issue as time passes, after all in this case its them who are influenced by the west, and not the west forcing its ways on them.
The only thing that has to be dealt with in a quick manner is the flood of unnecessary English words in the language that have equivalents in Japanese.

i totaly agree :wave:

[nyouyaku]

well, that is true, why would some one not like to be in japan?
it has grown to be an awesome country.
but some japanese people are not satisfied with what japan has become and wish it could respect traditions more...instead of being a country where people just emitate the west.
i know that from my interactions with many japanese on line

You know, the Japanese people are really into being isolationist. So I can sympathize some of them would want to leave for freer countries. But why should North America take more of them in when they are not allowing others in with open arms despite the cry of help due to population decline. A Visa is a tit for tat deal. Compared to the rest of Asian countries, the Japanese still have it the best. They should come and see the rest of southeast Asia, especially China. If they just tried eating the MSG infested food that you would want to throw up, and breathed in the smog from Beijing China, the Japanese need to be thankful that they still have the most declicious food (unless if you are vegetarian) to offer. Grunting that Canada or Hawaii is a better place to live doesn`t wash. It might be so, but the Japanese have it good enough. The Chinese who have to endure nasty food and toxic shopping malls with toxic fumes leaking out need help migrating abroad to North America.

[ajackson17]

I do believe that the military forces should be shrunked and more discipline should be instilled in the military as for I am part of the USAF, but leave japan, I don't think so, because it gives a lot of people a chance to learn about different culture and instilled, but I do understand that the military does a lot of awful things and stuff. Like I'm interested in Japanese history, language, music, art, movies, and other soughts of things. So when I become civilian in a few years, I'll try to live here, because I love it out here. I'm stationed in okinawa and I love the peaceful nights, the people, the live bands, becoming bilingual in japanese. Its something really amazing. Thats what I fear for those who don't get to the chance to indulge themselves in this amazing culture, but for those who don't want to be here, than I believe they shouldn't be here.

[Dogen Z]

"The Army also listed a handful of felony waivers granted for kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html?ref=us

:(

[Glenski]

for those who don't want to be here, than I believe they shouldn't be here.
And, just exactly how are you going to ensure that? Let enlisted men vote on their assignments? Yeah, right.

[Capster78]

"The Army also listed a handful of felony waivers granted for kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html?ref=us
:(

I guess you missed this in your article....

"Over all, the numbers represent less than 1 percent of the 115,000 new enlistments last year in the active-duty Army and Marine Corps."

That is just enlistments in the last year, that is not inclusive of thouse who are already in the Army/Marine's. Then you also have to consider that more than half of the military that is stationed in Japan is Air Force. The Air Force does not grant wavers for any type of misconduct. So you are talking about probably a quartern to a tenth of a percent. Then you also have to consider the percentage of thouse that ever get sent to Japan as most of thouse troubblemakers are in jobs that would put them in Iraq or Afghanistan because they are desperatly needed in Combat roles which are not present in Japan.

[alantin]

We are missing the "necessary evil" option..

[Capster78]

We are missing the "necessary evil" option..


Necesary evil huh?? That sounds like a good way to feel less guilty about knowing you need our protection.

[alantin]

The US protecting doesn't sound very plausible, does it.. Exploiting sounds much more like what it stands for!

Because of the way US forced itself on Japan it's presence might have gained the position of a necessary evil but since when has invading a country, making sure it can't defend itself, and maintaining a military presence there, been protecting?
In some kind of anarchy perhaps..

Of course it is understandable if what they tell to their own people is something very different. That's how propaganda has always been!

In the end perhaps the best one of the given choices would be "Yes, They did a lot of very bad things"--

[Capster78]

The US protecting doesn't sound very plausible, does it.. Exploiting sounds much more like what it stands for!

Because of the way US forced itself on Japan it's presence might have gained the position of a necessary evil but since when has invading a country, making sure it can't defend itself, and maintaining a military presence there, been protecting?
In some kind of anarchy perhaps..

Of course it is understandable if what they tell to their own people is something very different. That's how propaganda has always been!

In the end perhaps the best one of the given choices would be "Yes, They did a lot of very bad things"--

All you have to do is look at the history of the region and the underlying fears of a mass military buildup would cause in this part of the world. Japan, China and Korea have clashed for centuries. There is still alot of animosity between the three countries despite the decades of relative peace. The US acts more as a appeaser in this region. Everyone is happy. We have an agreement with japan to have limited military capability in exchange for our promise protection. This appeases Korea, China, the Philippines and several other surrounding countries that somthing like WWII would never happen again. On the other hand it appeases Japan because it is not forced by large sanctions and limited protection like germany after WW1. If the US leaves it could throw that out of ballance. With everything happening in the middle east right now, the world can not afford another large troubbled region of the world.

[alantin]

Thus "necessary evil"!

That sounds like a good way to feel less guilty about knowing you need our protection.

I'm really happy that my country isn't invaded by the arrogant world police or doesn't "need USA's protection" as you put it..

Cheers! ^^

[Capster78]

Thus "necessary evil"!



I'm really happy that my country isn't invaded by the arrogant world police or doesn't "need USA's protection" as you put it..

Cheers! ^^

Keep repeating that propaganda which you have been brainwashed with. Ill be right back, I have to clean my guns and torture the small iraqi children hiden in my closet. -signed- American

[alantin]

LoL

You just keep believing your propaganda if it's easier!
I do understand that one would want to think of one's own country as "the good guys" and representing the "just cause" but is it really that hard to imagine that someone wouldn't warmheartedly welcome foreign invaders or is the detail that they are american supposed to make the people happy about it?

One just has to wonder, what "patriotism" means to an american..

I wonder if you would be fine with a foreign power, Russia?, occupying your country in order to "protect" it..
If you think, it wouldn't be right in your own country why would it be right in someone else's country?

I am proud that my grandfathers fought for the independence of this country and as a national of a country that formerly was under foreign rule I see foreign military presence in a country as a disgrace for everybody involved!

No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price. Yet, I sure can sympathise.


-Signed-
Foreign rule never again!

[EdZiomek]

I say, yes, Japan is self sufficient, warm and wonderful to the world, why should we need military bases there?

Besides, VietNam might allow us to use facilities in their region, or the PI once again.

Just like our forefathers told us... beware of a large, standing military... it almost suggests going to more and more wars, which will never be eliminated anyways.

Of course, Washington will state that the rise of China as a major force makes it a necessity to stay.

I say, When can we leave and return as tourists 100%?

[Capster78]

LoL

You just keep believing your propaganda if it's easier!
I do understand that one would want to think of one's own country as "the good guys" and representing the "just cause" but is it really that hard to imagine that someone wouldn't warmheartedly welcome foreign invaders or is the detail that they are american supposed to make the people happy about it?

One just has to wonder, what "patriotism" means to an american..

I wonder if you would be fine with a foreign power, Russia?, occupying your country in order to "protect" it..
If you think, it wouldn't be right in your own country why would it be right in someone else's country?

I am proud that my grandfathers fought for the independence of this country and as a national of a country that formerly was under foreign rule I see foreign military presence in a country as a disgrace for everybody involved!

No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price. Yet, I sure can sympathise.


-Signed-
Foreign rule never again!

Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan. Obviously ignorant of the Korean war and why we are in Korea. I understand completly where you are coming from in regaurd to having a forign military in your country. It does take away a bit of pride. I don't know many people who's pride would not be hurt by having to have a protector. No one likes that opinion of them and on an international stage it is even more shamefull in the eyes of a nationalistic country such as japan and korea to have a forign military and not their own protecting them.

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. We landed in South Korea to keep North Korea and china from spreading communism. We landed in Japan to keep japan from building another army capeable of invading its neighbors again. Later on, this turned into a mission to protect Japan from any backlash affects down the road from anyone trying to get revenge. North Korea invaded to Conquer, Japan invaded to Conquer, Germany invaded to Conquer.. America invades to liberate. I think there is a HUGE difference there. There is no nationalistic pride americans hold to expand america.

[grapefruit]

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. We landed in South Korea to keep North Korea and china from spreading communism. We landed in Japan to keep japan from building another army capeable of invading its neighbors again. Later on, this turned into a mission to protect Japan from any backlash affects down the road from anyone trying to get revenge. North Korea invaded to Conquer, Japan invaded to Conquer, Germany invaded to Conquer.. America invades to liberate. I think there is a HUGE difference there. There is no nationalistic pride americans hold to expand america.
As a person who does not believe the Soviet style communism was/is an effective model for creating an ideal society, I'm glad that the US fought in Korea and Vietnam. However, whether one considers war in a foreign territory as liberating or conquering depends on if one perceives the war brings in more positive results or negative ones. This is, to some extent, confirmed when we observe the war in Iraq and the difference in how the US and some in the Arab world recognize it.

I also feel "liberating others", sort of, forms a part of nationalistic American pride. The US is not motivated by territory, but the country is certainly motivated by other things. Also, when you take a close look at how European countries colonized others, it appears that their interests shifted toward the end of the colonial era from territorial ones to others like access to markets and natural resources. So, it is not just territorial motivations that often attract criticisms of colonization.

I concur with the fact that Japan and Germany had territorial motivations, but it appears strange to frame Korean War as "North Korea invaded to Conquer." After all, the Korean Peninsula belongs to Koreans. They have every right to govern themselves.




Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan. Obviously ignorant of the Korean war and why we are in Korea. I understand completly where you are coming from in regaurd to having a forign military in your country. It does take away a bit of pride. I don't know many people who's pride would not be hurt by having to have a protector. No one likes that opinion of them and on an international stage it is even more shamefull in the eyes of a nationalistic country such as japan and korea to have a forign military and not their own protecting them.
This is true, though. I agree.:-)

[Capster78]

As a person who does not believe the Soviet style communism was/is an effective model for creating an ideal society, I'm glad that the US fought in Korea and Vietnam. However, whether one considers war in a foreign territory as liberating or conquering depends on if one perceives the war brings in more positive results or negative ones. This is, to some extent, confirmed when we observe the war in Iraq and the difference in how the US and some in the Arab world recognize it.

It is funny you should mention this. Many predicted that as a result of the war the US would gain favorable business deals with Iraq. This is far from the truth. If you do some research you will find that there was an american deal for oil that was put down by the government of Iraq. The only real financial gain the US can hope to have is lower gas prices once Iraq is stable. When you really sit down and think of all the countries in that neighborhood and the many disputed boarders in that region you can see the makeing of another large regional conflict much like WW1 or WW2. Pakistand and India, Pakistand and Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Israel and.... everyone in the middle east, Tibet and china, North Korea and South Korea.. Where is the spark going to ignite the fire at???? The largest spark at the time was in Iraq.

I also feel "liberating others", sort of, forms a part of nationalistic American pride. The US is not motivated by territory, but the country is certainly motivated by other things. Also, when you take a close look at how European countries colonized others, it appears that their interests shifted toward the end of the colonial era from territorial ones to others like access to markets and natural resources.

How is this working out for america right now? If we are looking for pride in liberating Iraq we are not doing a very good job. Most polls show America to be totally against the war, that is not pride is it? If we are looking for financial gain... again, not doing a good job if that is the case.

[Capster78]

I say, yes, Japan is self sufficient, warm and wonderful to the world, why should we need military bases there?
Besides, VietNam might allow us to use facilities in their region, or the PI once again.
Just like our forefathers told us... beware of a large, standing military... it almost suggests going to more and more wars, which will never be eliminated anyways.
Of course, Washington will state that the rise of China as a major force makes it a necessity to stay.
I say, When can we leave and return as tourists 100%?

Do you believe tentions between Japan and all the surrounding countries is gone? WW2 was not as long ago as you think, you are simply to young or not even born to remember it. It probably did not affect you like it affected the people in China, Korea or the Philippines. The general feeling I get when talking to a Korean or a Japanese person is that they are still very leery of each other. Its obvious the Chinese are leery of their neighbors given there mass military buildup over the last 5-10 years. Now you have Russia coming back to power. This may favor China and North Korea depending on how Russia's forign policy twords these countries evolves.

If you wish to eliminate war, the only way of doing so is to try and do what Hitler did and rid the world of all races and cultures leaving it with only 1 race, 1 culture and 1 ideology. This would be the only type of world that could exist without conflict. Even then, its still not a gauruntee. A country without a military is going to be easy prey.

[EdZiomek]

Capster... I am 56, still too young for my own good, and so old nothing works anymore (ask my wife!). Great posts here, but your comment..."If you wish to eliminate war, . ...." ...the Hitler ref is all wrong, when you think about it.

But yes, Humans are programmed for war, for dominance, for sex drives, for power drives, even for something as simple as ..."Gee, I like your sneakers, give them to me or I will kill you!"

My opinion...If iwo humans are left on this earth, they will eventually fight. And if there are two men and one woman, it will take at least 5 minutes for hostilities to commence, sex a little longer. :-)

And if there are two women and one man, at least 3 days and ten minutes for war, with sex much longer!

What I want to know is ...if the United Nations was created in '46 or '48 to discuss all the world problems, at what point did they give the United States the Crown of "Head Honcho, Protector of the Earth, Grand Occupier of all Strategic Locations"?

And is the world now generally saying... "Hey self-appointed King-ster, you did good and bad in the past, take a break already, leave!"

"Change" is a healthy, wonderful thing. And there 30 more wars ongoing in the world we can concentrate on.

America should leave anywhere the people want us to leave.

[alantin]

Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan.

Obviously icabable of understanding what others are saying. Did you even read my post?

The invader is always morally inferior and in this regard I consider Japan even worse. I know very well how american military ended up in Japan and this is exactly why I wrote about "necessary evil" and:
"No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price".


And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. ...
... America invades to liberate.

Hmm..? :okashii:

I think it boils down to perception just like grapefruit said. To you it might be liberation but go tell it to the countless people who lost their mothers, fathers, sons, daughers (civilians!) because the US came to liberate..

Also this just made me wonder how the native americans, who were liberated to their wonderful reservations, would feel about this.. :okashii:

[grapefruit]

How is this working out for america right now? If we are looking for pride in liberating Iraq we are not doing a very good job. Most polls show America to be totally against the war, that is not pride is it? If we are looking for financial gain... again, not doing a good job if that is the case.
I believe the US failed to "liberate Iraq" and had no gain in pride, rather lost some reputation, and American people learned them too. I think that's why most Americans are against the war now. The reason why the US is unwilling to pull out immediately seems, to me, to avoid further damage to the US's reputation for liberation, since irresponsible sudden withdrawal will certainly cause Iraq more chaotic than its state prior to the "liberation".

Americans also turned against the war probably because most of them realized that there is no prospect for financial gains. The war turned out to be too costly. If I remember correctly, the initial assessment of how long the war was going to continue was much shorter than what we ended up with. So, the costs of the war became much higher than the expected gain.

Anyway, I guess my post was off topic.

[grapefruit]

Hitler did and rid the world of all races and cultures leaving it with only 1 race, 1 culture and 1 ideology. This would be the only type of world that could exist without conflict. Even then, its still not a gauruntee. A country without a military is going to be easy prey.
I am not supporting what Hitler did, but it is dangerous to believe what the US is (or has been) doing is completely different from what Hitler did. Self-reflection is always valuable. The US is surely trying to expand its ideology to the world (whether it is good or bad is what history will decide). Who to decide which country is "evil" and which is not? Isn't it an ideology? (By the way, I'm not judging which ideology is better, here.) Whether we like it or not, American globalization is also killing some type of cultural diversity.

[EdZiomek]

Grapefruit... the H analogy is such a poor example, anymore, nobody hates him more than the good Germans, I promise you. Let that history die.

Let's talk beautiful present and future. Japan is a wonderful place, fully self sufficient. They can politically align themselves with anyone they want, one of whom is America. If/when they say... keep your carriers in the oceans, help us with our naval lanes, but be nice... can you take your physical troops somewhere else, please? Germany same thing.

It would be completely understandable, for the entire world.

Has it happened yet, or do the majority of Japanese accept our presence?

[grapefruit]

Grapefruit... the H analogy is such a poor example, anymore, nobody hates him more than the good Germans, I promise you. Let that history die.
Let's talk beautiful present and future. Japan is a wonderful place, fully self sufficient. They can politically align themselves with anyone they want, one of whom is America. If/when they say... keep your carriers in the oceans, help us with our naval lanes, but be nice... can you take your physical troops somewhere else, please? Germany same thing.
It would be completely understandable, for the entire world.
Has it happened yet, or do the majority of Japanese accept our presence?
Yeah, I forgot to insert a crucial element. What I meant by "evil" was the characterization of Iran, North Korean, and what was the third one again? anyway, the way the current US government describes these countries. I did not mean Germany or Hitler by "evil"...:relief:

[Capster78]

Obviously icabable of understanding what others are saying. Did you even read my post?

The invader is always morally inferior and in this regard I consider Japan even worse. I know very well how american military ended up in Japan and this is exactly why I wrote about "necessary evil" and:
"No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price".

I agree, no one should have to carry that shame. However we have to agree that a world without conflict can only exist if only 1 ideology existed. You will never rid the world of different ideologies. I don't see the US as an occupying force in japan at all. We do not control japanese politics or dictate law in japan. Just like the military force of japan is limited, we are also limited to protecting japan. We are not here as an occupying force. We are here as a overseer and apeaser to both japan and its surrounding neighbors. We have effectively appeased all sides which is why this part of the world has been peacefull for as long as it has. I hate the phrase "necessary evil". Why can you not change this to just "necessary". Why does evil have to come with necessary in your quotation. This shows your bias to the situation. I think the reasons american forces are where they are have been overshadowed by years of propaganda in the press that has slowly chiped away at the sensability of people. It is this type of propaganda that is very dangerous because it leads to generalizations that can and will fly in the face of understanding. I would not want to learn and understand about another culture if all I hear about that culture is negative. In reality you only learn about the extreems of that culture. Thouse extreems are what lead to the dangerous generalizations that can lead to 2 nations at war.



Hmm..? :okashii:

I think it boils down to perception just like grapefruit said. To you it might be liberation but go tell it to the countless people who lost their mothers, fathers, sons, daughers (civilians!) because the US came to liberate..

Also this just made me wonder how the native americans, who were liberated to their wonderful reservations, would feel about this.. :okashii:

How about the countless people who lost their mothers, fathers, brothers and friends to Saddams genocide of the Kurds? Or the invasion of Kuwait, or the Iran/Iraq war? The death and destruction of US forces in Iraq pale in comparison to these. It sounds like your singleing out America as the source when it is not the case at all. America is not after killing the citicens in Iraq. We are after thouse who kill the citicens in Iraq. This type of opinion shows that the propaganda used by insurgents is effective. The purposefully hide amoung the citicens of Iraq so that they can say we kill them. Many try to justify insurgents targeting innocent civilians by saying if the US was not there it would not be happening. On the other hand, America is evil for accidently killing civilians who happen to be in the area of these insurgents. What type of twisted logic is this??? It is obvious the propaganda works.

As for issues like the Indian/American war and the Mexican/American war, I am truely shamefull. However, it is not hidden in american history. It is written in every history book you will find in schools across america. And it understood and agreed by many americans that what was done was wrong. That can not be said by many other countries around the world.

[Capster78]

I am not supporting what Hitler did, but it is dangerous to believe what the US is (or has been) doing is completely different from what Hitler did. Self-reflection is always valuable. The US is surely trying to expand its ideology to the world (whether it is good or bad is what history will decide). Who to decide which country is "evil" and which is not? Isn't it an ideology? (By the way, I'm not judging which ideology is better, here.) Whether we like it or not, American globalization is also killing some type of cultural diversity.


America now and Germany during hitler's reign are complete and total opposites. I don't know how anyone with any type of intelligence could compare the two. This is prety much all I will say because its true.

Why does it have to be American Globalization????? Globalization in general kills diversity, but it also kills dangerous cultural divisions. If we wanted to maintain cultural diversity we could all live like North Korea and not allow any type of outside influence or "Globalization" affect us.

[alantin]

I don't see the US as an occupying force in japan at all. We do not control japanese politics or dictate law in japan. Just like the military force of japan is limited, we are also limited to protecting japan. We are not here as an occupying force. We are here as a overseer and apeaser to both japan and its surrounding neighbors.

We have effectively appeased all sides which is why this part of the world has been peacefull for as long as it has. I hate the phrase "necessary evil". Why can you not change this to just "necessary". Why does evil have to come with necessary in your quotation.


Just look at what the thread is all about!
It is a poll about what people think of US forces in Japan.
I gave my opinnion implying that I'm not so thrilled about american forces there, but I see the necessity of their presence.
What you did was force me to defend my opinnion instead of just being content with there being people in the world that don't see things the same way as you do.
I hate the way you respond! It is biased and alarming and if the troops the US has around the world think and act the same way..
It just makes me extremely worried and uncomfortable about them! :auch:
And why is it so hard for you to accept that I see differently about this than you do even thought we agree that at the moment US presence is necessary in Japan? Evil or not.


I agree, no one should have to carry that shame. However we have to agree that a world without conflict can only exist if only 1 ideology existed. You will never rid the world of different ideologies.

I agree that you will never rid the world of different ideologies but I can't agree to the rest because IMO the true reason for conflict is not cultural diversity but that people are always incabable or unvilling to respect other peoples right to have their own ideologies even if they might be radically different from one's own.
Ofcourse one always thinks that he's own ideology or wordl view is the best but but we have seen throughout the history how lack of respect has lead to nations setting off to war to spread their "true ideology". I bet they all have thought that they are doing the world a favor..
In a sense, history does decide who was right in the end.

It is funny that you should accuse me of being biased and a subject of propaganda.. my country had nothing to do with Japan in the war and I have no 'bias'!
Considering this I just wonder how an american could be able to say that he is in a better situation to be impartial about this..


How about the countless people who lost their mothers, fathers, brothers and friends to Saddams genocide of the Kurds? Or the invasion of Kuwait, or the Iran/Iraq war? The death and destruction of US forces in Iraq pale in comparison to these. It sounds like your singleing out America as the source when it is not the case at all. America is not after killing the citicens in Iraq. We are after thouse who kill the citicens in Iraq. This type of opinion shows that the propaganda used by insurgents is effective.

Are you saying that US is above criticism?

Keep in mind that we are talking about Japan here. Not Iraq. :okashii:
I was thinking about Hiroshima. The A-bombs ended the war and it is true that there was a big military base in Hiroshima, but I have been there and seen evidence how this "necessary evil" instantly killed thousands upon thousands of civilians and those were just the lucky ones!
It is ironic that the bomb went off over the Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, not a military base.. :okashii:
And if that wasn't enough, Nagasagi followed!

Necessary?

It is intriguing that according to the wikipedia even General of the Army Douglas MacArthur said afterwards that the bombings were not Justified by military reasons.
Other highly decorated military officers agreeing with him include 'Fleet Admiral William Leahy', 'General Carl Spaatz', and 'Brigadier General Carter Clarke'.

Hmm..

So the bombings I would just call evil! No justification to that and nothing that happens elsewhere in the world changes that. And it seems that if you disagree, you have better qualified people than me within the US military too to answer you from this perspective.

Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

[Capster78]

Just look at what the thread is all about!
It is a poll about what people think of US forces in Japan.
I gave my opinnion implying that I'm not so thrilled about american forces there, but I see the necessity of their presence.
What you did was force me to defend my opinnion instead of just being content with there being people in the world that don't see things the same way as you do.
I hate the way you respond! It is biased and alarming and if the troops the US has around the world think and act the same way..
It just makes me extremely worried and uncomfortable about them! :auch:

You are completly contradicting yourself here. You say that I should just take your opinion and be content with it, however you turn around and force me to defend my opinion. Its called and argument. Arguments usually happen in democratic societies, it is a productive thing. This is a discusion board, and this particular forum is called HOT TOPICS. I would expect as a poster in this forum to see people arguing on debated topics. If it were not an important issue to me I may just let opinions be opinions and go on my way, however, this issue is near and dear to me seeing as I am a US service member in Japan. So excuse me for exercising my right to defend in somthing I deeply believe in. I must make a distiction between the US Military and my opinions. My opinions are not any reflection on what the US military or its other members believe in. They are my own opinions and arguments.



You agree with me that no one should have to carry the shame? There you have a part of my answer to your question why I think it is a "necessary evil" instead of just "necessary". Heck! Why can't you be happy with that! I bet there are people who would just call it "evil"!

And I would argue just as strongly if someone said it were just evil. If you understand anything about the current situation of US military personell in japan you would understand the sensativity of the word evil when attached to US forces in japan.

I can't agree to the rest because IMO the true reason for conflict is not cultural diversity but that people are always incabable or unvilling to respect other peoples right to have their own ideologies even if they might be radically different from one's own.

Yes, and a nation diverse in different cultures usually has this problem. The United states has all kinds of issues with racism and hate crime because of its diversity. Iraq has this problem with the Kurds, Shites and Sunni's. The difference is that we have a democratic society so we have ways other than civil war and violent protests to solve issues.

It is funny that you should accuse me of being biased and a subject of propaganda.. my country had nothing to do with Japan in the war and I have no 'bias'!
Considering this I just wonder how an american could be able to say that he is in a better situation to be impartial about this..

The world is biased against the US. I guess you have not payed any attention to opinion polls across the world. I believe alot of it has to do with misunderstanding and generalizations the media propogates that are simply not true on any wide scale.

Keep in mind that we are talking about Japan here.. :okashii:
Perhaps you should make a thread about american troops in Iraq somewhere else..

I did not bring up Iraq, it was brought up as a part of an argument that America is invading all these countries.. so it ties into reasoning for US forces to be in Japan also.

I was thinking about Hiroshima. The a bombs ended the war and it is true that there was a big military base in Hiroshima, but I have been there and seen evidence how this "necessary evil" instantly killed thousands upon thousands of civilians and those were just the lucky ones!
It is ironic that the bomb went off over the Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, not a military base.. :okashii:
And if that wasn't enough, Nagasagi followed!
An interestin piece of information is that there was even an aircraft named "necessary evil" involved in the bombings!

Necessary?

It is intriguing that according to the wikipedia even General of the Army Douglas MacArthur said afterwards that the bombings were not Justified by military reasons.
Other highly decorated military officers agreeing with him include 'Fleet Admiral William Leahy', 'General Carl Spaatz', and 'Brigadier General Carter Clarke'.

How about the thousands and thousands of people killed in Korea, Philippines, China and surrounding areas when Japan decided to expand its boarders. What about pearl harbor????? There are strong arguments on both sides for the use or against the use of the Atomic Bomb. However, we can not go back and change the past to see what the outcome would be if we had not used it. My guess is that if we had or had not used it, alot of people would have died. It is called war, and we did not even start it, we just finished it.

[grapefruit]

So... what are we talking about now? I'm kind of lost:relief: Let's calm down and focus on something.

[Capster78]

So... what are we talking about now? I'm kind of lost:relief: Let's calm down and focus on something.

I appologise for takeing a direct confrontational approach to makeing my point. I get frustrated when the people I work with who are law abiding good people get this label placed on them. And that large amount of misinformed people led by people who intentionally misinform them in order to fulfill their political goals at the expense of some very good people who don't deserve it.

[alantin]

@Capster78
Is the US is always right and everything that goes against what they say is unfounded anti-US propaganda?
Are the results of these polls an indication that the whole world is under propaganda against the oh so innocent US that just tries it's best to save the world or an indication that US should take a good look at a mirror and think about some things.

I have always been thaught that the first place you start looking for the fault in a situation, is yourself. Not everybody else.

I really don't know anything about how the US military personell are doing and you might well be the first I have ever exchanged thoughts with.
Anyway, if you want people to think better of you, perhaps you should behave better instead of accusing others for not liking you for what you represent there. That sounds like a good recipe for conflict..

How about what Japan did, you ask..
I have explicitly stated what I think about Japan's actions during the war. I don't really see any reason to further repeat myself.

War is never an excuse! War is barbarism and the only kind of military I can accept only exists to defend one's own country. IMO even that is a necessary evil.
So excuse me for defending something I believe in and for being unable to agree with you here.


The topic sure got hot and I agree with grapefruit. Perhaps we should calm down and just let it be.

And just for the record! I don't try to label any people. The soldier are doing what they are ordered to. What is behind it all is something very different.

Sorry for the confrontational approach. Just got frustrated..

[Capster78]

@Capster78
Is the US is always right and everything that goes against what they say is unfounded anti-US propaganda?
Are the results of these polls an indication that the whole world is under propaganda against the oh so innocent US that just tries it's best to save the world or an indication that US should take a good look at a mirror and think about some things.

I think america looks at the mirror to often to tell you the honest truth. We create rules of war that only we follow. I guess you are blind to the tactics insurgents in iraq use. We find a few bad apples in the US Military and guess what, they are tried and convicted in a court of law. The US is suddenly evil.. However, the Iraqi insurgents, who target innocent people purposfully, are just victims of American Imperialism. Im sorry, but if that is not biased propaganda at work, I don't know what is.

I have always been thaught that the first place you start looking for the fault in a situation, is yourself. Not everybody else.

I really don't know anything about how the US military personell are doing and you might well be the first I have ever exchanged thoughts with.
Anyway, if you want people to think better of you, perhaps you should behave better instead of accusing others for not liking you for what you represent there. That sounds like a good recipe for conflict..

Behave better? You mean stop being so direct, accept the labels that people put out there, accept the misinformation. I bet if someone were to come to your house and insult your family, you would not take a polite approach to it. That is what the US military is to me. I will not allow the very very few bad people in the military blanket us with the negative and unfair opinions people have. I will not sit back and be polite if someone is insulting my country either. So just keep that in mind if you make a deragatory remark against US servicemembers or the US that I don't think has been earned, I will be posting and you need to have your facts strait. Sorry if that seems direct but at some point you have to stand up to what you believe in.

How about what Japan did, you ask..
I have explicitly stated what I think about Japan's actions during the war. I don't really see any reason to further repeat myself.

War is never an excuse! War is barbarism and the only kind of military I can accept only exists to defend one's own country. IMO even that is a necessary evil.
So excuse me for defending something I believe in and for being unable to agree with you here.

I don't like war, no one likes war. I cringe at the though that every day another family is left without a father, mother, brother.. ect.. ect.. However, it has been a part of us since humans have been on this earth. The problem is you can not come to grips with reality that having a military to meerly defend is a recipe for defeat. If the world was a peacefull place that is all we would need.. and if every country only had a military to defend there would be no need for a military to begin with. So it seems to me your idealism is quite flawed. The realities are infront of you but you wish not to see them.


The topic sure got hot and I agree with grapefruit. Perhaps we should calm down and just let it be.

And just for the record! I don't try to label any people. The soldier are doing what they are ordered to. What is behind it all is something very different.

Funny, so what if I were to say the soldiers also believe in the cause. Our military is not conscriptual, it is completly a volunteer military.

Sorry for the confrontational approach. Just got frustrated..[/QUOTE]

[alantin]

I will not sit back and be polite if someone is insulting my country either.

This insulting was exactly what you did with me and that's exactly why I started this exchange with you in the first place so the same right back at you pal!

so what if I were to say the soldiers also believe in the cause

It would make me even more uncomfortable about the said military.
What can I say. Must be exactly the kind of people they are looking for..

Anyway. This has gone on far too long. Just think whatever you wish but don't require others to buy your propaganda!

I'm done here.

[Capster78]

This insulting was exactly what you did with me and that's exactly why I started this exchange with you in the first place so the same right back at you pal!

Sorry for makeing you (not) back up your words.



It would make me even more uncomfortable about the said military.
What can I say. Must be exactly the kind of people they are looking for..

Anyway. This has gone on far too long. Just think whatever you wish but don't require others to buy your propaganda!

I'm done here.

There is no propoganda in my words. What I speak of is the truth. You are the one continually spouting propaganda weather you realize it or not. Again your above statement shows your infused with it. "It would make me even more uncomfortable about the said military." I won't ask you to back up that statement because I know you can't without spouting the propaganda you hear on the news everyday.

[alantin]

Again your above statement shows your infused with it. "It would make me even more uncomfortable about the said military." I won't ask you to back up that statement because I know you can't without spouting the propaganda you hear on the news everyday.

You just can't leave it.. You got a direct answer to a direct question and everything I think about war and military can be read above so again I don't see any reason to repeat myself.

Like I said, I will not just calmly sit back when someone blatantly insults my country so I'll still write to answer this..
You seem to be well informed about how things are here, the country that for years has been in the top of the 'top 10 least corrupt countries in the world' (Btw. US, on the other hand, barely makes the 'top 20'..).

I would very much like to know, what kinds of faults you find in the Finnish news reports, if you have the nerve to call them propaganda.. :okashii:
Facts, please!

The problem is you can not come to grips with reality that having a military to meerly defend is a recipe for defeat. If the world was a peacefull place that is all we would need.. and if every country only had a military to defend there would be no need for a military to begin with. So it seems to me your idealism is quite flawed. The realities are infront of you but you wish not to see them.

This also happens to be the country that has won its independence almost a hundred years ago and fended off all of Russia's latter attempts of invasion with its 'idealistic recipe for defeat defensive military'..
Exactly whose idealism is flawed? :okashii:

And I just wonder if you realize that the only source for the propaganda you see here is the american film idustry. Every day millions of people here watch hours upon hours of american movies and television shows full of american national icons, symbolism, american patriotism, etc. Heck! I just watched an american war movie in the television last night!
So if I'm infused with propaganda, there is no other candidate than the american one.

And please, every sane person should know that something just isn't true and everything else false because you say so.
Please, stop just spouting your propaganda all the time. It is getting old.
And atleast try to get your facts straight.

But if you really want to continue on this tiresome road:
Sure, if it makes you happy..
The US is the great and innocent saviour of the world. It's above criticism and it has never hurt a fly. The whole world is just unjustly under evil propaganda against it dispite it's best intentions. This is the absolute truth and no one may question this! No propaganda here, folks!
Uh. Huh..

Could we, please, stop here.. :okashii:

[grapefruit]

I agree with what Capster78-san says that 99.999....99% of US servicemen are law abiding warm-hearted people, and I do appreciate the protection the US provides to Japan. I also believe the majority of Japanese people feel in this way (unlike Koreans:relief:).

However, this appreciation toward the US forces stationed in Japan does not, in my opinion, automatically translate into believing in every point of view that the US provides on world international issues. In the post-war Japanese society that is heavily influenced by American views, it is hard to entangle effects of American influence when one tries to understand how WWII started and ended and why Japan still needs the US forces. Nevertheless, there are some indications that direct me to suspect the validity of the US government's claims. The most obvious one is how the US denied the involvement of the emperor in the war. It does not make sense that the US disapproved putting the emperor in the trail. The only possible reason is that the US was not interested in creating the correct view on what really happened in WWII. The US was probably only interested in how to benefit form the occupation. Another contradiction is the adoption of the so-called peace constitution that prohibits the possession of military forces. It makes sense to recommend Japan to throw away the military tradition that misguided its country's direction up to the end of the war. Yet, this policy was changed after the eruption of the Korean War. The US urged Japan to have the SDF. This opportunistic behavior indicates the danger of believing everything the US government says.


I think america looks at the mirror to often to tell you the honest truth.

It is probably not enough. World news is rarely broadcast in the US. The only world news in the US seems to be the war in Iraq or reports from the middle east.


We create rules of war that only we follow. I guess you are blind to the tactics insurgents in iraq use. We find a few bad apples in the US Military and guess what, they are tried and convicted in a court of law. The US is suddenly evil.. However, the Iraqi insurgents, who target innocent people purposfully, are just victims of American Imperialism. Im sorry, but if that is not biased propaganda at work, I don't know what is.
I don't think we are singling out the US. The Iraqi insurgents are evil too.
Any side is guilty of being selfish. It's a human nature.


If the world was a peacefull place that is all we would need.. and if every country only had a military to defend there would be no need for a military to begin with.
If the richest country in the world had decided to compromise a bit or to heed on other countries' opinions, some conflicts might have been avoided. The recent US behavior lacks this kind of consideration. The Kyoto Protocol epitomizes the American attitude that lacks self-reflection.

Having pointed out negative aspects of the US, I also understand the views that I provided above are probably something hard to be accepted by those who risk their lives for the US. If I were to joint the US forces, I would like to do the right things. I would not like to be involved in the wrong cause. Otherwise, how could one dedicate his life?

[Capster78]

You just can't leave it.. You got a direct answer to a direct question and everything I think about war and military can be read above so again I don't see any reason to repeat myself.

Im not forcing you to post. If you think you have made your point and your happy with it, then there is no need to continue posting.

Like I said, I will not just calmly sit back when someone blatantly insults my country so I'll still write to answer this..

I have never insulted your country. Where in any of my posts have I insulted Finland?

You seem to be well informed about how things are here, the country that for years has been in the top of the 'top 10 least corrupt countries in the world' (Btw. US, on the other hand, barely makes the 'top 20'..).

Im not going to get into a discussion about which country is more corrupt. That does not help the subject of this thread at all. I know the article in which you are refering to. It is a Forbes Magazine article and the author sais himself it is subjective.

I would very much like to know, what kinds of faults you find in the Finnish news reports, if you have the nerve to call them propaganda.. :okashii:
Facts, please!

Fact #1 - You are biased against the US.

Where did you get this bias? Were you in Iraq watching the fighting in the streets, Are you in Japan watching the protests in Okinawa. Are you in Korea watching thouse protests? Were you at Abu Ghraib prison during the prisoner torture scandal? You had to hear about these issues somewhere.



This also happens to be the country that has won its independence almost a hundred years ago and fended off all of Russia's latter attempts of invasion with its 'idealistic recipe for defeat defensive military'..
Exactly whose idealism is flawed? :okashii:

You don't understand military strategy, and I don't expect you to. What Im refering to is in a situation like WW1 and WW2. There will be another, and the countries who have a defensive military only strategy will be the easiest to be swallowed. By the way, your military has not always been defensive. I think you forgot WW2 when you sided with Nazi Germany in fighting Russia. Your country later had to fight the Germans to keep your independence. If the Germans were not busy with the US and Englad in South Africa/France/Italy and the Russians, your country would have fallen to Germany.



And I just wonder if you realize that the only source for the propaganda you see here is the american film idustry. Every day millions of people here watch hours upon hours of american movies and television shows full of american national icons, symbolism, american patriotism, etc. Heck! I just watched an american war movie in the television last night!
So if I'm infused with propaganda, there is no other candidate than the american one.

I don't live in finland so I can not say what types of propoganda you are exposed to. I can make an assumption based on your responses in this post that you are Anti-US. My assumption is that your view has been influenced by something. Maybe it was influenced by the propaganda in the US against the war in Iraq, which is fueled by the negative view the world has of the US. Many people in the US would like us to be painted in a favorable view rather than fight for the very thing our country was founded on. An analogy would be.. I would rather not shoot that criminal over there who is about to kill an innocent person because it may make me look bad. They would rather ignore the bad things happening in the world and live in their own. Kind of a selfish way of living and not the way I want to live.

And please, every sane person should know that something just isn't true and everything else false because you say so.

I would hope not, that is a dangerous thing for someone to just believe what someone tells them is truth. I welcome any argument against my views. My views have been shaped by what I have researched on both sides of the issue. I take that information, expose it to logic and common sense, then come up with my opinion as to which view or a combination of both views is most likely the truth.

Please, stop just spouting your propaganda all the time. It is getting old.
And atleast try to get your facts straight.

Please tell me which facts are incorrect and I will reserch them and get back to you.

But if you really want to continue on this tiresome road:
Sure, if it makes you happy..
The US is the great and innocent saviour of the world. It's above criticism and it has never hurt a fly. The whole world is just unjustly under evil propaganda against it dispite it's best intentions. This is the absolute truth and no one may question this! No propaganda here, folks!
Uh. Huh..

I never said the US is above criticism. I said the US is being judged unfairly by the world. I do believe the US is great and has good intentions at heart, otherwise I would not have joined the military to defend some of it's views. We give aid and come to the aid of countries who need it.

[Capster78]

However, this appreciation toward the US forces stationed in Japan does not, in my opinion, automatically translate into believing in every point of view that the US provides on world international issues.

I agree. It still does not justify the unfair views people maintain about the US and specifically US forces in Japan.

In the post-war Japanese society that is heavily influenced by American views, it is hard to entangle effects of American influence when one tries to understand how WWII started and ended and why Japan still needs the US forces.

I dissagree. I think it is very easy to understand the reasoning behind US forces in Japan after WW2 as I have pointed out in previous posts.

Nevertheless, there are some indications that direct me to suspect the validity of the US government's claims. The most obvious one is how the US denied the involvement of the emperor in the war. It does not make sense that the US disapproved putting the emperor in the trail. The only possible reason is that the US was not interested in creating the correct view on what really happened in WWII.

The only possible reason???? There are several reasons why they may have decided to not try him for war crimes. The real question is, are these reasons justification for excluding him. The emperor agreed to the surrender of Japan, so why would we want to replace him? We needed someone to keep in line with that promise. If we had him sign the peace treaty and then striped him of his authority that could perhaps put that agreement in danger. He has the biggest sphere of influence over the people of japan being he is more than just a political figure, but also a spiritual influence that weighs heavier than any political influence can have.

There is also alot of confusion about the role the Emperor had during the war. Was he just a figurehead in the war, misguided and misinformed by his military advisers? Or was he the sole authority? I think this truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The US was probably only interested in how to benefit form the occupation.

The benefit was the garuntee that japan would not try to build its military up for another invasion. I can agree that as a result of that benefit, other benefits have come about. Not just to the benifit of the US but also Japan. Our financial relationship is what has driven both countries to be financial powerhouses in their respective regions of the world. Without this relationship, american consumers would not be buying Japanese products.


Another contradiction is the adoption of the so-called peace constitution that prohibits the possession of military forces. It makes sense to recommend Japan to throw away the military tradition that misguided its country's direction up to the end of the war. Yet, this policy was changed after the eruption of the Korean War. The US urged Japan to have the SDF. This opportunistic behavior indicates the danger of believing everything the US government says.

The JSDF existed before the Korean war. It was established in 1945. I think what you mean is the expansion or the size of the JSDF was increased during the Korean war out of necessity. When that war broke out servicemen were diverted and taken from Japan to fight in Korea because of its proximity to it. This left Japan vunerable, so we urged the government to build a larger force to fill the void we left behind. Even so, public opinion was strongly opposed to the expansion of the JSDF because the views were against any type of military in japan including a japanese military after WW2.
It is probably not enough. World news is rarely broadcast in the US. The only world news in the US seems to be the war in Iraq or reports from the middle east.

This is untrue, however I would agree many people in the US pay little attention to world events which is why it is so easy to influence them against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.


If the richest country in the world had decided to compromise a bit or to heed on other countries' opinions, some conflicts might have been avoided. The recent US behavior lacks this kind of consideration. The Kyoto Protocol epitomizes the American attitude that lacks self-reflection.

Before I can even start to argue this I would have to argue if I believe in global warming or not first, that would be another thread by itself. Either way, it would be a moot argument. The reason why the Kyoto Protocol could not be implamented in the US is because the change in infrastructure to comply with it would probably bankrupt our country.
Having pointed out negative aspects of the US, I also understand the views that I provided above are probably something hard to be accepted by those who risk their lives for the US. If I were to joint the US forces, I would like to do the right things. I would not like to be involved in the wrong cause. Otherwise, how could one dedicate his life?

Which is why I will argue on the side of the united states untill it's policies change against what I believe in. If that were to happen, I would also get out of the military and probably move to another country if it botherd me that much.

[grapefruit]

There are several reasons why they may have decided to not try him for war crimes. The real question is, are these reasons justification for excluding him. The emperor agreed to the surrender of Japan, so why would we want to replace him? We needed someone to keep in line with that promise. If we had him sign the peace treaty and then striped him of his authority that could perhaps put that agreement in danger. He has the biggest sphere of influence over the people of japan being he is more than just a political figure, but also a spiritual influence that weighs heavier than any political influence can have.
There is also alot of confusion about the role the Emperor had during the war. Was he just a figurehead in the war, misguided and misinformed by his military advisers? Or was he the sole authority? I think this truth lies somewhere in the middle.
It does not make sense to excuse the emperor on the ground that he agreed to surrender. Are you saying as long as somebody says "Oh I surrender!", the person's responsibility will be cleared?　The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was supposedly conducted to decide who was responsible for the war, right? If the US had been really motivated by ideals, the search for the truth should have been the most important thing. As you have mentioned, the emperor's involvement in the war was not clear. Isn't that why we have a trial? We should have put him on trial to find out the truth. Instead the US chose the easiest way. The US knew the conclusions of the trail were compromised by this, yet it enforced Japan to accept the results of the trial in the Treaty of San Francisco. There was no need to conduct the trial right after the war. If they had been too afraid of confusion that would be caused by putting the emperor on trail, they could have postponed it. Instead, they chose to open the trial right away. Anyway, I'm not getting into details of the trial's unfairness. I will stick to the point of not putting the emperor on trial, since this seems really odd even to those who are leaned to the left (it is usually right-wing people who assert the unfairness of the trail).


The benefit was the garuntee that japan would not try to build its military up for another invasion. I can agree that as a result of that benefit, other benefits have come about. Not just to the benifit of the US but also Japan. Our financial relationship is what has driven both countries to be financial powerhouses in their respective regions of the world. Without this relationship, american consumers would not be buying Japanese products.
I did not say Japan did not gain any profits. Didn't I say that most of Japanese people appreciate the US forces presence in Japan? But, my point is not about how Japan gained profits. It is about how the US's motivations are tied to achieving results that are favorable to the US (by the way, this is a normal behavior and every country does it). I'm simply pointing out that the US government's main motivation is not driven by its urge to expand democracy to the world. Of course, I'm not saying each individual is not driven by his belief in helping the world. I am sure many Japanese solders who were in the Japanese Imperial forces during WWII also believed that they were liberating Asia from the hands of western colonial powers. It is the simple-minded picture of "evil" vs. "good" that worries people. Any country is driven by both self-centered motivations and altruistic motivations, the US is not an exception. I have no doubt that the US is contributing to the world peace.


The JSDF existed before the Korean war. It was established in 1945. I think what you mean is the expansion or the size of the JSDF was increased during the Korean war out of necessity. When that war broke out servicemen were diverted and taken from Japan to fight in Korea because of its proximity to it. This left Japan vunerable, so we urged the government to build a larger force to fill the void we left behind. Even so, public opinion was strongly opposed to the expansion of the JSDF because the views were against any type of military in japan including a japanese military after WW2.
Any person who look up the history book would say that the JSDF was established in 1954. The prior organization, which is probably what you are referring to, was a police organization (the National Police Reserve) established in 1950 in response to the Korean War. I have no qualms with establishing the police organization. It is the JSDF that violates the constitution. As you have mentioned, the public strongly opposed it, but the US government forced the Japanese government to establish the JSDF and to make a new interpretation of the Article 9 of the constitution. This action by the US suggests to me that the US had little interest in respecting democracy in Japan or making Japan observe the constitutionality of the very constitution that the US itself imposed to Japan.


This is untrue, however I would agree many people in the US pay little attention to world events which is why it is so easy to influence them against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know it is true because I see American news broadcast everyday. Almost all major stations except CNN introduce news only pertaining to Afghanistan and Iraq. They have reports on other countries only when some important American figures visit these countries. If you compare their broadcasts to, say, Japan or China, you will see how they introduce news from many regions of the world. For instance, I did not see reports on Iceland's economy on US news. That's because Iceland has nothing to do with the US.


Before I can even start to argue this I would have to argue if I believe in global warming or not first, that would be another thread by itself. This argument is functional only in the US.:relief: If you mention this outside of the US, everyone will see you as a person who is
"brainwashed" by the American "propaganda".

Either way, it would be a moot argument. The reason why the Kyoto Protocol could not be implamented in the US is because the change in infrastructure to comply with it would probably bankrupt our country. Such a statement clearly suggests the US only cares about himself. Why do you think the other countries are willing to participate? Of course, the other counties have to shoulder economic burdens. Why is the US exceptional?


Which is why I will argue on the side of the united states untill it's policies change against what I believe in. If that were to happen, I would also get out of the military and probably move to another country if it botherd me that much.
Do you really have to believe in everything the US government says to work in the US forces?:? I don't know because I am not working for the US forces.:relief:

[Capster78]

It does not make sense to excuse the emperor on the ground that he agreed to surrender. Are you saying as long as somebody says "Oh I surrender!", the person's responsibility will be cleared?　The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was supposedly conducted to decide who was responsible for the war, right? If the US had been really motivated by ideals, the search for the truth should have been the most important thing. As you have mentioned, the emperor's involvement in the war was not clear. Isn't that why we have a trial? We should have put him on trial to find out the truth. Instead the US chose the easiest way. The US knew the conclusions of the trail were compromised by this, yet it enforced Japan to accept the results of the trial in the Treaty of San Francisco. There was no need to conduct the trial right after the war. If they had been too afraid of confusion that would be caused by putting the emperor on trail, they could have postponed it. Instead, they chose to open the trial right away. Anyway, I'm not getting into details of the trial's unfairness. I will stick to the point of not putting the emperor on trial, since this seems really odd even to those who are leaned to the left (it is usually right-wing people who assert the unfairness of the trail).

Im not saying it was right, Im saying it was necissary. It was a stratigic political move on the part of the US because they believed the emperor would uphold the peace treaty. They knew that puting him on trial would force them to strip him of his position and force them to possibly renegociate the peace treaty if whoever was placed in power in his place did not agree to it.


I did not say Japan did not gain any profits. Didn't I say that most of Japanese people appreciate the US forces presence in Japan? But, my point is not about how Japan gained profits. It is about how the US's motivations are tied to achieving results that are favorable to the US (by the way, this is a normal behavior and every country does it). I'm simply pointing out that the US government's main motivation is not driven by its urge to expand democracy to the world. Of course, I'm not saying each individual is not driven by his belief in helping the world. I am sure many Japanese solders who were in the Japanese Imperial forces during WWII also believed that they were liberating Asia from the hands of western colonial powers. It is the simple-minded picture of "evil" vs. "good" that worries people. Any country is driven by both self-centered motivations and altruistic motivations, the US is not an exception. I have no doubt that the US is contributing to the world peace.

You are kind of sending a mixed message with this post. You say that Japan has benifited as the US has, from US forces being here. Then you seem to try to compare the spread of Democracy to the spread of Imperial Japan. Then you say the US is infact contributing to world peace. Im not quite sure what your opinion is, maybe that is being done on purpose to hide your real opinion.


Any person who look up the history book would say that the JSDF was established in 1954. The prior organization, which is probably what you are referring to, was a police organization (the National Police Reserve) established in 1950 in response to the Korean War. I have no qualms with establishing the police organization. It is the JSDF that violates the constitution. As you have mentioned, the public strongly opposed it, but the US government forced the Japanese government to establish the JSDF and to make a new interpretation of the Article 9 of the constitution. This action by the US suggests to me that the US had little interest in respecting democracy in Japan or making Japan observe the constitutionality of the very constitution that the US itself imposed to Japan.

You are correct!! Got me on somthing!! :). JSDF was established in 1954. I don't think Article 9 was forced on japan. I think it was a joint agreement which also echoed public sentiment on war in general after WW2 and the atomic bomb which led to the creation of article 9. When the US went to war with Korea it was not a one sided agreement that Japan was to build a defensive force. In 1950 It was argued even by japanese politicians there should be a self defense force. So they established a lightly armed police force as you mentioned above. America wanted to protect democracy in japan, otherwise it would have been against a JSDF instead of supporting it.


I know it is true because I see American news broadcast everyday. Almost all major stations except CNN introduce news only pertaining to Afghanistan and Iraq. They have reports on other countries only when some important American figures visit these countries. If you compare their broadcasts to, say, Japan or China, you will see how they introduce news from many regions of the world. For instance, I did not see reports on Iceland's economy on US news. That's because Iceland has nothing to do with the US.

Tv is not the only media source in the US. I read about many issues abroad from online US sources. Mainly because I am interested in what is going on overseas. The information and coverage is available if your interested in finding it. Americans tend to be less interested in what is going on overseas. There are discussions all the time where I work about what is happening overseas. I think the military is unique in the sense most people understand what happens overseas affects us quite a bit more than a civilian.

This argument is functional only in the US.:relief: If you mention this outside of the US, everyone will see you as a person who is
"brainwashed" by the American "propaganda".

Funny how you say its American Propaganda.. There is a large movement in america for enviornmental preservation and global warming. It is so large that it affects politics. Just look at Al Gore. If it were not such a large issue in america he would not have gotten the press coverage he did. So it is not American Propaganda at all. Maybe its Chinese or Indian propaganda also...China has the most to loose now that it has surpased the US as the largest contributer to global warming. India is also starting to edge up.

Such a statement clearly suggests the US only cares about himself. Why do you think the other countries are willing to participate? Of course, the other counties have to shoulder economic burdens. Why is the US exceptional?

Untrue. The statement suggest that america is not going to corner itself into an agreement that could potentially cause financial problems. The US is unique in that it will cost ALOT more to conform to such an agreement than any other country (besides maybe china).


Do you really have to believe in everything the US government says to work in the US forces?:? I don't know because I am not working for the US forces.:relief:

Not at all. However it is not permited for US military members to support or participate in political rallie, riots or express them publicly in uniform. Joining the military, you loose a little bit of your rights to "good order and discapline". Which is why the military can tell us we have a cerfew in japan for example.

[pipokun]

It does not make sense to excuse the emperor on the ground that he agreed to surrender. Are you saying as long as somebody says "Oh I surrender!", the person's responsibility will be cleared?　The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was supposedly conducted to decide who was responsible for the war, right? If the US had been really motivated by ideals, the search for the truth should have been the most important thing. As you have mentioned, the emperor's involvement in the war was not clear. Isn't that why we have a trial? We should have put him on trial to find out the truth. Instead the US chose the easiest way. The US knew the conclusions of the trail were compromised by this, yet it enforced Japan to accept the results of the trial in the Treaty of San Francisco. There was no need to conduct the trial right after the war. If they had been too afraid of confusion that would be caused by putting the emperor on trail, they could have postponed it. Instead, they chose to open the trial right away. Anyway, I'm not getting into details of the trial's unfairness. I will stick to the point of not putting the emperor on trial, since this seems really odd even to those who are leaned to the left (it is usually right-wing people who assert the unfairness of the trail).
...


I think grapefruit's posts go too off-topic.


1) Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?=>this thread

2) The International Military Tribunal for the Far East=>Nothing to do with this thread

Separate them.

[Mycernius]

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion.
That is a bit of a lie. Iraq was an invasion, based upon false information. Afghanistan was an invasion. Also Panama in 1989-90; Grenada in 1983, which was critised by the UN and the UK and Canada; Cambodia in 1973, a neutral country, along with the South Vietnam army; the Dominican Republic in 1965 because LBJ feared another Cuba; and of course the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba. Now I don't know about you, but they all look like invasions to me. Maybe you should adjust your opinion.

[Capster78]

That is a bit of a lie. Iraq was an invasion, based upon false information. Afghanistan was an invasion. Also Panama in 1989-90; Grenada in 1983, which was critised by the UN and the UK and Canada; Cambodia in 1973, a neutral country, along with the South Vietnam army; the Dominican Republic in 1965 because LBJ feared another Cuba; and of course the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba. Now I don't know about you, but they all look like invasions to me. Maybe you should adjust your opinion.

This deserves a seperate thread if you want to debate it. I would be happy to if you would like to open one up. I like to call them, premtive strikes, not invasions. That is just how I see them though.

[grapefruit]

I think grapefruit's posts go too off-topic.


1) Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?=>this thread

2) The International Military Tribunal for the Far East=>Nothing to do with this thread

Separate them.
I agree I went off-topic.:relief: Sorry for the long comment I posted.:p

[Mycernius]

This deserves a seperate thread if you want to debate it. I would be happy to if you would like to open one up. I like to call them, premtive strikes, not invasions. That is just how I see them though.
You're the one who sems to think an invasion is a pre-emptive strike if done by the US? hmmm, says quite a bit. I wonder what your opinion is of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands or Russia in Afghanistan is. If you wish to try an get people to understand why the indoctrination you seem to have that every invasion done by the US is not really an invasion then by all means I think YOU should start the thread.

[Capster78]

You're the one who sems to think an invasion is a pre-emptive strike if done by the US? hmmm, says quite a bit. I wonder what your opinion is of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands or Russia in Afghanistan is. If you wish to try an get people to understand why the indoctrination you seem to have that every invasion done by the US is not really an invasion then by all means I think YOU should start the thread.

In my opinion, an invasion is little more than a reasonless attack on a forign soil for expansionism. where as a pre-emptive attack is a protective measure against a most probable threat. Again, not part of this thread......

[grapefruit]

You are kind of sending a mixed message with this post. You say that Japan has benifited as the US has, from US forces being here. Then you seem to try to compare the spread of Democracy to the spread of Imperial Japan. Then you say the US is infact contributing to world peace. Im not quite sure what your opinion is, maybe that is being done on purpose to hide your real opinion.

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.:-)

[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.:relief:

[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.:relief:

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 (http://www.jpri.org/friends/masumi_AS_1Jan08.html) 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.:relief:

[Capster78]

I'm not sure about the nuclear weapon option.:relief:

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.:relief:

[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,
:okashii:
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,
:okashii:
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.:relief: 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,
:okashii:
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:relief:

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.:relief: 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?:?

[Capster78]

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

Probably, but were not going to go to war just to make a few government contractors rich.

[Sukotto]

Probably, but were not going to go to war just to make a few government contractors rich.

The film Why We Fight (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682) documents how a standing "military-industrial complex" (a phrase coined by Prez Dwight D Eisenhower in his outgoing speech) makes it much, much easier to go to war.

[Capster78]

The film Why We Fight (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682) documents how a standing "military-industrial complex" (a phrase coined by Prez Dwight D Eisenhower in his outgoing speech) makes it much, much easier to go to war.

This may have been true during the industrial era in Eisenhower's time.

[Golgo 13]

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.

Not really. The money we poured in are the taxpayers money, so if someone had an agenda, it's flawless thus far because they didn't have to spend a cent. They just pick up contracts and make money.

[Capster78]

Not really. The money we poured in are the taxpayers money, so if someone had an agenda, it's flawless thus far because they didn't have to spend a cent. They just pick up contracts and make money.


Then the economy should be booming right. All these contractors makeing money off Iraq.

[Sukotto]

This may have been true during the industrial era in Eisenhower's time.

Militarism has become so pervasive in our culture in the US we often don't even notice it. Why do fighter jets sometimes fly over the opening of a Packers' game? What the heck does that have to do with a sporting event?

And with all those so-called "think-tanks" that pretty much write policy that congress members wind up making into actual policy.

These "think-tanks" have their own "researchers" and publish reports saying things like "all these countries are a threat to the US". Or maybe they use the word "potential" and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is actually US policy to not even allow any country to even attempt to get close to a level of military that the US has. What's up with that? Paranoia?

US bases remain in Japan (and over 700 admitted in over 130 different countries, but that's another story) because of paranoia with regards to China (capitalist at this point in history). Or some people's warped ideas that they have to act tuff. But that might have to do with paranoia too.
:sorry:

[Golgo 13]

Then the economy should be booming right. All these contractors makeing money off Iraq.
Most of the big money was made earlier in the War. Ever heard of Haliburton and Blackwater Security? I'm sure you did because both have been involved heavily in news scandals regarding Iraq especially the $$$ they made. They were both contracted by the United States government and were paid for by the U.S taxpayers money. I'm not sure but I think a majority of contractors are hired by the U.S government and not particularly off the Iraqi people.

[Uchite]

The film Why We Fight (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682) documents how a standing "military-industrial complex" (a phrase coined by Prez Dwight D Eisenhower in his outgoing speech) makes it much, much easier to go to war.


I think that during the World War II era and about up to the Korean War, patriotism and U.S. nationalism was at an all-time high. Going to war was seen as "heroic" and "patriotic".

With the invention of television, the veterans coming back from Vietnam and questioning what they did, why they did it, and the ever-more revealing truth that war is not fun, people really do get killed and it is not like the movies was when people starting questoning the whole idea and reason for going to war and killing people who have personally done you no harm whatsoever. :shock: It became more and more evident that wars are fought not for or about the so-called "warriors", but only to serve the politicians' egos and greed! :clueless: "Fight for your country!" No such thing anymore. If there was ever such a thing!

[Capster78]

Militarism has become so pervasive in our culture in the US we often don't even notice it. Why do fighter jets sometimes fly over the opening of a Packers' game? What the heck does that have to do with a sporting event?
And with all those so-called "think-tanks" that pretty much write policy that congress members wind up making into actual policy.
These "think-tanks" have their own "researchers" and publish reports saying things like "all these countries are a threat to the US". Or maybe they use the word "potential" and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is actually US policy to not even allow any country to even attempt to get close to a level of military that the US has. What's up with that? Paranoia?
US bases remain in Japan (and over 700 admitted in over 130 different countries, but that's another story) because of paranoia with regards to China (capitalist at this point in history). Or some people's warped ideas that they have to act tuff. But that might have to do with paranoia too.
:sorry:

Again, someone who has watched to much politically influenced TV in the US. So you would be for saddam having the capabilities the US has? You would be for Iran and North Korea having Nuclear weapons. You would be for China swallowing Taiwan?

Most of the big money was made earlier in the War. Ever heard of Haliburton and Blackwater Security? I'm sure you did because both have been involved heavily in news scandals regarding Iraq especially the $$$ they made. They were both contracted by the United States government and were paid for by the U.S taxpayers money. I'm not sure but I think a majority of contractors are hired by the U.S government and not particularly off the Iraqi people.
So how is halliburon and blackwater going to m