Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

[engalaa]

this is my poll

[Brooker]

I think Japan would be very unhappy if U.S. forces left. Despite some complaints of having American troops in their country, they want American protection against North Korea. And with American troops there, they don't have to spend so much money on their military, rather they can put that money into their economy. That's a major reason Japan has become as economically powerful as it is. They might like to have some of their own forces too, but unless some other factors changed dramatically, they would probably feel very vulnerable without American troops protecting them.

[engalaa]

USA army is so bad, noboady can protect his country like him ...so I wonder if you wife you bring your nighbour to prtect your wife and you will go to work..!!!! ..it is so funny .... and as we know and all the world know USA control in Yen by the USA army so the troops change the decision in Japan and USA control in ecnomy of Japan so Japan could not untill now to to make yen powerful like US dollars

[DoctorP]

USA army is so bad, noboady can protect his country like him ...so I wonder if you wife you bring your nighbour to prtect your wife and you will go to work..!!!! ..it is so funny .... and as we know and all the world know USA control in Yen by the USA army so the troops change the decision in Japan and USA control in ecnomy of Japan so Japan could not untill now to to make yen powerful like US dollars


What are you talking about? :? I remember several times in recent years when the Yen was more powerful than the $

[babar-san]

i would have to say that even though i loath bush, the current situation with korea is enough to justify american forces in japan. i juts wish they would revise japans constitution so they could form a military and join the un security council:0

[engalaa]

CC1 can you tell me when the Yen was more powerful than USD....are you sure?!!!!!!!!

[Brooker]

CC1 can you tell me when the Yen was more powerful than USD....are you sure?!!!!!!!!

Even now when I go to Japan with my US $$s I get less yen in return. When I take my yen back to America it almost doubles in value. It seems that the Yen is USUALLY more valuable than the dollar.

[Bob in Iowa]

can you tell me when the Yen was more powerful than USD....are you sure?!!!!!!!!

We are planning a trip to Japan in a couple of months, and I assure you that our US dollars are worth a lot less than they ever have been vs the Japanese Yen, so at least from my point of view, one of those times is right now.

http://members.aol.com/islabob2/images/cool.gif

[DoctorP]

CC1 can you tell me when the Yen was more powerful than USD....are you sure?!!!!!!!!


Speaking strictly of exchange rates here you go:
Yen to $
1994-07-01 98.45
1994-08-01 99.94
1994-09-01 98.77
1994-10-01 98.35
1994-11-01 98.04
1994-12-01 100.18
1995-01-01 99.77
1995-02-01 98.24
1995-03-01 90.52
1995-04-01 83.69
1995-05-01 85.11
1995-06-01 84.64
1995-07-01 87.40
1995-08-01 94.74

This was from my first time in Japan. Since then the dollar has rebounded, but recently it has dropped again.

[Lina Inverse]

The US-$ is on a clear downward trend lately. Actually, the Euro has reached a new historical height compared to the US-$ :haihai:
Actual course as of today is US$ 1.3255 per 1�, with an ongoing downward course for the US-$.
For any who don't know it, when the course of the � was set forth end of the 90s as an exact 1:1 course towards the US-$.
It's very interesting to see that since then, it has increased a whopping 32.55% in value in relation to the US-$ - or the US-$ has lot 32.55% in value :D Whichever way you see it.

The Yen course is currently at 136.77 Yen per 1� (giving about 103 Yen per US-$), with an upward tendency however, so you'll soon get less than 100Yen/US-$ again.

[Brooker]

Actually, the Euro has reached a new historical height compared to the US-$ :haihai:

Historically? :okashii: You mean since they started using Euros like a few years ago? :D

[MWThomas]

I honestly don't care whether or not U.S. forces leave Japan. With current trends in American decision making those forces in Japan may be called to occupy that nation.

[SkippyDaStudent85]

i would have to say that even though i loath bush, the current situation with korea is enough to justify american forces in japan. i juts wish they would revise japans constitution so they could form a military and join the un security council:0

I am in total agreement with you babar-san

[Shooter452]

I was stationed in Japan (Okinawa) while I was on active duty and I think it would be a shame for the US to pull its military forces from Japanese soil. But I think that perhaps that it is time to leave.

Having military forces in Japan was a financial benefit to the Japanese when they recovered from the devastation of the Second World War, and was a benefit to the US startegic plans during the Cold War. Japan no longer needs the economic assistance. The US is no longer attempting to contain the Soviet Union. The Japanese do not fear China (although perhaps they should) and are contemplating the expansion of the JDF. They do not need us. They want us less and less to be there.

The shame is that without US forces on Japanese soil, the avearge US citizens are less likely to see Japan, the people there, and the interchange of culture and ideas will decrease. Travel is expensive, more so in Japan. Without the social exchange between our people, understanding will lessen and the specter of simple generalization might replace it.

I am not Japanese. I would never want to live in Japan. But I will always value my experiences there and I fear that I will never go there again.

[sabro]

I don't know enough about it, but I did vote yes. I am not certain that our presence in Japan is of neccessity to either country's interests. I could be persuaded to vote no however.

[m477]

The reasons for having the US military there have are basically all gone now as Shooter mentioned, so I think they should gradually phase out their presence in Japan. However, before that we should get our military out of Korea. SK has a huge army (all males are required to serve) so they can protect their own border. There's no reason to waste US taxpayers' money there any more.

[sabro]

Several of my friends in the military have said that any new Korean conflict would at least initially look like the last one. North Korea has no chance of winning a protracted engagement withough more Chinese help, which is probably not going to happen. But nothing could stop a massive push from the North from entering Seoul and pushing all the way to the southern part of the peninsula. (Not that US soldiers could do much about this, but their presence serves as a deterrent: You don't want to kill ten thousand GI's and then expect the US to stay home.)

Taiwan also seems to like having a US presence in the region.

[Shooter452]

The reasons for having the US military there have are basically all gone now as Shooter mentioned, so I think they should gradually phase out their presence in Japan. However, before that we should get our military out of Korea. SK has a huge army (all males are required to serve) so they can protect their own border. There's no reason to waste US taxpayers' money there any more.

I start with the cavaet that all my information is highly dated, but in this case I think that it might make it all the more relevant. But there are other reasons to close the bases on Okinawa.

On Okinawa, the facilities used by the USMC have become smaller in the number of acres used. This has limited the usefulness of those bases. Those acres known as the Northern Training Area (mostly jungle wilds of the northern end of the island) are vital for combat training of the units there. They have also become much desired for developement and the Tokyo government has often urged the US to surrender them. Without those training areas, the USMC bases are utterly useless...all the more reason to close all of them. Like Garcia Vieques and the Roosevelt Roads Navy Bases in Puerto Rico, without the NTA there is no purpose for keeping the Okinawa Marine bases open.

About the Air Force base at Kadena and all mainland Japanese bases I have no knowledge, nor opinions.

[m477]

Some more food for thought:

The Japanese government is footing most of the cost of keeping the American military in Japan (which is probably the reason why Japan needs such a large military budget). So there's obviously not a lot of motivation for the US to remove its forces.

Also, this might sound odd, but Japan might be worried about political problems with China and Korea. China especially has been critical of the size of Japan's military budget, and some Chinese have even compared Japan's military presence in Iraq to their military expansion of the Pre-WW2 period. Perhaps the Japanese government is worried that if it started raising an army to replace the American soldiers, they would have to deal with China or Korea claiming that they were planning some sort of military aggression?

[Brooker]

The Japanese do not fear China (although perhaps they should)

Good post. Just a few points to add...
It seems the Japanese fear MOST of their neighbors, mostly North Korea and therefore want U.S. protection.

The shame is that without US forces on Japanese soil, the avearge US citizens are less likely to see Japan, the people there, and the interchange of culture and ideas will decrease.

Well, the military leaving might mean a lot less military type personnel won't get to see Japan, but, as one who's lived in Japan myself, there are a lot of Westerners in Japan experiencing the country and I think the close connection between Japan and the U.S. would continue even without a U.S. military presence in Japan.

However, as I said earlier in this thread, I really don't think Japan wants U.S. forces to leave.

[Windy]

I'm with MWThomas.

American Forces have been here too long, mostly idle/raping schoolgirls. It's high time they were used to occupy Japan.

[Shooter452]

Well, the military leaving might mean a lot less military type personnel won't get to see Japan, but, as one who's lived in Japan myself, there are a lot of Westerners in Japan experiencing the country and I think the close connection between Japan and the U.S. would continue even without a U.S. military presence in Japan.


I suppose that is a matter of how you define "a lot."

Your opinion has the advantage of being from another, and completely different, point-of-view, Brooker. I am in no position to dispute how many Westerners live in Japan, but I knew factually how much it cost to travel and live there when I was there. I also know that the Japanese government is very careful when it comes to issuing work visas. As a tourist, spending greenbacks, you are kinda welcome, but you aren't gonna be staying and living there without special considerations being present. And the average blue-coller lunch pail kids will never, never be able to afford to even travel to Japan by commercial means, except as a tour of duty in the armed forces being stationed there.

I am sure that those Westerners with skills desired by Japan will be welcomed to remain for extended stays. I am also certain that those with hefty AmEx and VISA Platinum cards can arrange to remain there for more than a few weeks, but I do not think that I agree that most US citizens, those without fat trust funds, will find it easy to even get there, let alone stay.

The armed forces have traditionally allowed lower middle class kids the advantage of foreign travel. Without bases in Japan, these US citizens would probably never go there at all.

It all depends on your background and your bank account, Brooker. If you can afford it, you can jet-set to Tokyo. If not, you take your vacation time in Atlantic City and consider yourself fortunate to be there. It is only a matter of money.

But, like I said, yours could be a completely different point of view. I am not sure I know really enough to dispute it. *shrug*

[DoctorP]

I'm with MWThomas.

American Forces have been here too long, mostly idle/raping schoolgirls. It's high time they were used to occupy Japan.

Not trying to start a fight here, but just as many pretty young Japanese women have latched onto young American service members just for a free ride to the states, only to get a divorce and reap the benifits of being a resident alien much faster than usual! (not all marriages end this way mind you, but I have seen my fair share!)

[Brooker]

Shooter wrote...
I also know that the Japanese government is very careful when it comes to issuing work visas. As a tourist, spending greenbacks, you are kinda welcome, but you aren't gonna be staying and living there without special considerations being present. And the average blue-coller lunch pail kids will never, never be able to afford to even travel to Japan by commercial means, except as a tour of duty in the armed forces being stationed there.

Actually as a native English speaker it's quite easy to live in Japan very comfortably. If you have a college degree in any subject (which I know might eliminate some people right there, but still many would qualify) you can easily get a job and a work visa and collect a very nice income allowing you to live like a king while you're there (that's what I did). The only tricky part is saving up enough dough to get there. But I took a job on a cruise boat so I could pay off some bills and buy a plane ticket. Once I got there, I was taken care of.

[Shooter452]

Shooter wrote...
If you have a college degree in any subject (which I know might eliminate some people right there, but still many would qualify) you can easily get a job and a work visa and collect a very nice income allowing you to live like a king while you're there (that's what I did).

Some? According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 30% of the US population have a batchelor's degree or greater accomplishment at academic achievement. And that is a high number, never before achieved in this country. While that does figure out to be a somewhat large number of folks, it is only a slice of the population at large. (Check it out for yourself: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/nnn/releases/archives/education/000818.html)

Take a look at the Census Report's description of median income, Brooker. Compare that to your own yearly compensation and that of your father (and mother, if she worked when you were a child). Be sure to make the adjustments for inflation, and figure back to when the occupation of Japan started. Foreign travel has always been beyond the means of most Americans, and they are from the most affluent country in the world. Only the privilaged few scions of the upper-middle and wealthy classes of the USA have traditionally had the advantage of foreign travel. Except when they are in uniform. My point, remember?

Yes, there have always been a few of us who have scraped together enough "car fare" to get to Europe or Japan with the intent of using the Hitchhikiers Guide across the land and panhandling for coffee and croissants in the morning. I think that the Japanese are less tolerant of such activities, but I suppose that it is possible to still '"low ball" your travel expenses even there.

But we are talking about staying in Japan as an alien resident. There, the Japanese tend to be somewhat cautious. Just having a BA in social work does not insure one a work visa. Your field must be one that the Japanese economy finds useful, was my original contention. Obviously, they find you useful enough to allow you to stay. Dozo. We still come back to the fly in the buttermilk, bro...seventy percent of Americans do not even have a BA or BS to weigh-in with.

So it still comes back to my first statement in dispute: it all depends on how you define "a lot." No offense meant. I am not trying to tie your panties in a bunch about this, but I think that you over-estimate, sir.

PS: check out the "Visa Question" thread. Another POV.

[Brooker]

Shooter wrote...
Just having a BA in social work does not insure one a work visa. Your field must be one that the Japanese economy finds useful, was my original contention.

Brooker wrote...
If you have a college degree in any subject you can easily get a job and a work visa and collect a very nice income allowing you to live like a king while you're there

Shooter also wrote...So it still comes back to my first statement in dispute: it all depends on how you define "a lot." No offense meant. I am not trying to tie your panties in a bunch about this, but I think that you over-estimate, sir.

No, I didn't define the exact value of "a lot," but I sure saw A LOT of other foreigners when I was in Japan and they came from all different backgrounds. I see your point about a less broad range of people being able to experience Japan if the military leaves, and that may be a shame, but is that really a valid reason in favor of a military occupying a country?

[Shooter452]

Brooker wrote:

No, I didn't define the exact value of "a lot," but I sure saw A LOT of other foreigners when I was in Japan and they came from all different backgrounds. I see your point about a less broad range of people being able to experience Japan if the military leaves, and that may be a shame, but is that really a valid reason in favor of a military occupying a country?

Shooter responds:

No, it is not. Nor would I advocate keeping very expensive military bases on foreign soil just to give travel opportunities to the lower middle class. I was just pointing out a desireable by-product of that occupation.

You should know that the Second World War in the Pacific was a racial war. It was a war of unreasoning hatred and of incredible brutality on both sides. One of the bridges to understanding that salved those hatreds on--both sides--was that very occupation.

In 1945, a majority of Americans would have advocated expunging Japan. Surveys taken of Americans at the time advocated dropping more nuclear weapons on Japan. They--like the Japanese themselves--did not know that there were no more to use, but the fact that they would have comfortably advocated their use illustrates how bitter the feelings were about Japan. There are still people alive today who still hate the Japanese, but they are few because so many more understand something about them now.

I agree wholeheartedly that the bases should be closed, as you know from reading completely and thoroughly all of my previous posts, so I know that the question was strictly rhetorical. *knowing wink*

[yukio_michael]

Confirm or deny? Okinawans are more endeared to the Americans there than they are to the Japanese mainlanders....? Americans are currently stationed in Okinawa, whom also feel that the rest of Japan should share the "burden" of housing US Military bases--- However, I have read that due to racial tensions in the past, and slights from mainland Japan, Okinawa feels closer to it's American occupants than to Japan.
Has anyone else read this?

[klepman_1971]

they definatly should leave from japan, it makes me sick that there are american forces in japan.

[klepman_1971]

Confirm or deny? Okinawans are more endeared to the Americans there than they are to the Japanese mainlanders....? Americans are currently stationed in Okinawa, whom also feel that the rest of Japan should share the "burden" of housing US Military bases--- However, I have read that due to racial tensions in the past, and slights from mainland Japan, Okinawa feels closer to it's American occupants than to Japan.
Has anyone else read this?

dont believe everything u read

[DoctorP]

dont believe everything u read

Can I at least believe the things that I see?

Do you believe that Japan has legal right to control OKinawa?

[nurizeko]

I believe japan has a legal right to all its current territories (and those islands held by russia) and that even though the americans should always remember they are guests in the country and the japanese have their own governments and decisions on your stay in their country, if the japanese are wanting the americans out, they should at least spare a thought for why the americans there there in the first place, and the consiquences for japan without the americans defence presence.

Ive been thinknig about the american presence here since i laid eyes on the distinctively coloured yokata airbase buildings and its perimeter fence, and though i wouldnt like the US presence in my country, the UK isnt facing any threat from mainland europe, but thanks to the near history of asian politics, japan cannot claim to be entirely safe from threat, as chinese frothing out the mouth over japans war-time actions show, so.

Saying that, i wonder how america would react in the most unlikely event the japanese decided the americans should leave.

No doubt america would put sanctions and treat japan much like any other rogue state, few countries get to escape the "your either with us or against us" foreign policy.

That is not in japans interests either.

As such, i say it isnt time for the US forces to leave japan, though i dont claim to support american presence as a principal in other peoples countries, the fact of reality is that sometimes these things cannot be helped, and indeed, serve the interests of a country better then with their absence, america may behave a bit roughly now and then, but, america is still a good ally of most of the western world, and still stands for freedoms and democracy, even if sometimes people feel it is misguided.

But also, Americans shoould always remember that they are guests in this and other countries, and that when they step beyond the gates of their base, they are under the full weight and jurisdiction of that countries laws, and as such they are fully responsible for their own conduct.

As a foreign visitor without such military affiliations, i am under the same expectations.
Also, it may be no secret that as a US serviceman, i might be treated more harshly if i was to commit an offence, to serve an example.

Hopefully though japanese and americans will continue to maintain a tolerant friendly attitude towards each other.

The US presence here is here for the forseeable future until the japanese government or US administration sees fit to withdraw the bases.

[sabro]

Nurizeko- don't we (the US) still maintain bases at Holy Loch and Falsbrook, Scotland? I think we have an airbase further south at Suffolk also. Is the Japanese situation analogous?

[nurizeko]

possibly sabro, im not aware of this myself and if they do exist they must be top secret because nobody has ever mentioned to me.
Chances are their small facilities with few personel, nothing on the scale of the facilites and personel in japan.
Also being a predominantly white country, the odd american wont look too out of place.
Probably more americans working in the north sea oil bussiness then US millitary personel.

[zeroyon]

edit




1

[Jim Hodges]

Very strange. When I left Japan the first time it was 360 yen to the dollar. I went back and it was 260 yen to a dollar. I just took my wife to Okinawa and the yen was even with the dollar. It seems it would be better if the dollar were stronger so that people visiting Japan could buy more. Now it is too expensive to go.

[nurizeko]

Very strange. When I left Japan the first time it was 360 yen to the dollar. I went back and it was 260 yen to a dollar. I just took my wife to Okinawa and the yen was even with the dollar. It seems it would be better if the dollar were stronger so that people visiting Japan could buy more. Now it is too expensive to go.

The dollar is just weak lately...for a looong time.


For example the British pound is worth more then a dollar at the mo, i guess its a slumping economical phase to blame.

[Reiku]

That, or it's because we keep electing presidents who don't know how to tie their shoes, let alone balance a budget... :emblaugh:

Personally, I don't think we had any buisness being there in the first place. A country's millitary should be in their country, defending their borders--there's really no justifiable reasons for them to be anywhere or do anything else, IMO.

Anyway, one last smarta** remark before I'm done with this topic:

...Having military forces in Japan was a financial benefit to the Japanese when they recovered from the devastation of the Second World War,...

Who caused that devastation again?

It was us, wasn't it?

Isn't that kind of like burning someone's house down, and then showing up with a shotgun and offering to guard the place while they rebuild? :D

[Han Chan]

The Japanese tax payers precently pays 230 billion yen annually for having the US forces in the country. Now US demands that Japan shall pay 75% of the costs for moving troops to bases in Guam.

Todays editorial from Asahi is interesting reading:
"Cost of U.S. troops move (03/20/2006):
Talks continue over Washington's demand that Tokyo foot three-quarters of the bill to relocate U.S. Marine troops from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam, a move that is part of the realignment plan for the U.S. military forces in Japan.
The cost of this proposed transfer is exorbitant. The U.S. Defense Department estimates it will cost at least $10 billion (1.16 trillion yen), and insists Japan shoulder 75 percent of that expense, or $7.5 billion (870 billion yen)."

You can find the rest of the editorial through this link:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200603200113.html

What do you think is it fair that US demands Japan should pay these exorbitant costs? I don't - and I think even asking this price is offending!

[Panta Ray]

I hate USA army. They try to kill my in 1999, It is personale.

[DoctorP]

I hate USA army. They try to kill my in 1999, It is personale.

Sorry for your troubles, but just so you know it would be the US Army, not the USA Army (which is redundant!)

[Panta Ray]

Yes, US army. Sorry. I don't like terrorist, but I don't like bully also.

[nurizeko]

The Japanese tax payers precently pays 230 billion yen annually for having the US forces in the country. Now US demands that Japan shall pay 75% of the costs for moving troops to bases in Guam.
Todays editorial from Asahi is interesting reading:
"Cost of U.S. troops move (03/20/2006):
Talks continue over Washington's demand that Tokyo foot three-quarters of the bill to relocate U.S. Marine troops from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam, a move that is part of the realignment plan for the U.S. military forces in Japan.
The cost of this proposed transfer is exorbitant. The U.S. Defense Department estimates it will cost at least $10 billion (1.16 trillion yen), and insists Japan shoulder 75 percent of that expense, or $7.5 billion (870 billion yen)."
You can find the rest of the editorial through this link:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200603200113.html
What do you think is it fair that US demands Japan should pay these exorbitant costs? I don't - and I think even asking this price is offending!
Why should Japan pay for american forces to move? if the US wants its forces in someone elses backyard it pays for it itself....:okashii:

Edit: I think this is an example of Americans declining economy, if this continues, the price of being an ally of America will simply be too much, and the United States will find itself without friends pretty quickly.

[Sukotto]

Response to ?
Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

My opnion -- yes.



And do the Okinawans want us there?

Some have said that Okinawans don't really mind that much
about US bases there. So I emailed a couple people about the matter.
I got the following responses:



response #1 (the polite response)

(that those who complain about the US military bases in Okinawa
come mostly from outside) is not true. In fact, Okinawans are really
frustrated by and angry about the indifference the mainland Japanese
show about Okinawans shouldering the burden of the US military bases.
However, the person's mistake is understandable for two reasons. One,
Okinawans are very hospitable and generous people and do not show
their displeasure directly to you. They are almost infinitely
accommodating. But that doesn't mean they are willing to keep the
military bases forever. Two, many Okinawans are economically
dependent on serving the bases and the personnel. They will certainly
not tell their customers to bug off, especially when they have no
alternatives to serving this particular brand of customers. So those
two factors may make Okinawans look "cool" about the bases, but
that's only the surface.

The next time someone says something like what you have heard, ask
that person these questions: Have you made genuine friends with
Okinawans? Have you ever talked with locals about what they really
feel about having the military bases in their own communities? If
Okinawans are really "cool" about having the bases, why do they get
angry about the "incidents" instead of accepting them as part of the
baggage of having the military bases in their own land?

You might want to read "Cocktail Party" by Tatsuhiro Oshiro to
understand the complex psychological landscape of Okinawans about
having to live with the US military
men. Though it's old, but the core hasn't really changed.

---end #1----


response #2 (the less polite one)


I suggest that you read the numerous articles on Okinawa, often by
Okinawans, on the Japan Policy Research Institute web site (see
Okinawa in the Index). www.jpri.org. I interpret the American
soldier's remarks as saying that even though he's secretly ashamed
of what he is doing in Okinawa, he wants to believe that the
Okinawans are really happy to have him there. This is a typical
American male's fantasy: the people he rapes really want it.


---end #2---




Also, I came across a
A Newsletter on Ryukyuan/Okinawan Studies
for people to enjoy.

Archives of Ryukyuanist Newsletter
http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/ryukyuanist.htm
:148:

[zeroyon]

possibly sabro, im not aware of this myself and if they do exist they must be top secret because nobody has ever mentioned to me.
Chances are their small facilities with few personel, nothing on the scale of the facilites and personel in japan.
Also being a predominantly white country, the odd american wont look too out of place.
Probably more americans working in the north sea oil bussiness then US millitary personel.
I am quite suprised that you do not know about Lakenheath, Menwith Hill, and Mildenhall bases. I thought they were well known in the UK, but I guess I was mistaken... :souka:

Some information if you need it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Lakenheath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mildenhall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Menwith_Hill

Although smaller installations (or some now not in use), there is also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Alconbury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ascension_Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bicester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Chelveston
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Croughton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Digby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fairford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Feltwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Leuchars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Molesworth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Oakhanger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Upwood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Welford
and others I don't have convinient links to :-)

[Crazy Russian]

I always give vent to my pent-up feelings, vent my righteous anger and use bad language when discussing the US foreign policy. In most cases, it is only striking my head with a cleaver that can silence me.

So in order to not put my oar in the dispute, I shall say only two things:

1. I do dislike the US government to interfere in other people's affairs.

2. There being the US forces in Japan, the US government will not atom-bomb Hiroshima, Nagasaki or any other city lest the forces suffer.

[Crazy Russian]

I hate USA army. They try to kill my in 1999, It is personale.

Serbia and Russia are sister nations. I understand you very well...

I have never believed in good intentions of the US government. The US government carries out a dirty and execrable policy all over the world. They have some plans in Japan as well...

Panta Ray, though the Russian government betrayed Serbians in the 90s (I hate Russian politicians for that! I don't know why they did it. :( ), but Russian people have always loved Serbians and have always been on their side. Please, remember that...

And it's very pity that some politicians should be arse-lickers. Why are they afraid of being at variance with the US government's demagogy?

[irishlight42]

I voted 'Yes', but I firmly believe also that there should be SOME REASONABLE limits on Japan's military (Japan needs to be able to defend itself, which doesn't take too much however) until Japan is done denying atrocities from WWII.

A small army with technology such as Japan has, can do a plenty efficient job of defence. A large army, however, is only necessary for taking and occupying other countries. Militarism and nationalism, as can be seen with China (and the U.S. certainly; Bush should be impeached in my opinion honestly) is not a good mix. It is what led to people like Hitler and Hideki Tojo coming to power. Right now, there seems quite some nationalism in Japan (as well as more liberal Japanese, like in the U.S.), unlike in Germany where nationalism is frowned upon as dangerous.

For that matter, the disturbing nationalism needs to be stepped down in the U.S., and Bush needs to stop inflicting fear into the minds of Americans of "radical islamics" the way Hitler inflicted fear in the minds of Germans of "prominent jews", so that Americans will not blindly support the war in Iraq and the denial of "Habeas Corpus" to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

[Crazy Russian]

Russia, China and North Korea are the arch-enemies of the USA. Russia is the enemy because it is only Russia that can demolish the United States. Most American politicians avow it. China and North Korea are the ideological enemies of America. It is impossible to manipulate them.

Look at the countries that neighbour Russia. The US government do want them to hate Russia and consequently Russia to dislike them. Moreover, the US government do its utmost for the reciprocal hostility to exist. Fortunately, most of the Russians defy it and the Russian government keeps on maintaining friendly relations with all nations and does not give way to its temper, under whatever American provocation. However, the Latvian, Estonian, Moldavian, Polish, Georgian, Ukrainian, etc. governments hate Russia. Our next-door neighbours Ukraine and Georgia have already had the US forces in their countries. The American state-mongers (as well as two Washington puppets: the Ukrainian president Yushchenko and the Georgian president Saakashvili) say to the Ukrainians and Georgians: "Russia is your enemy! We are here to protect you from the mad Russian bear! Russia wants to enslave you! You can be free only with the Americans!"

There are almost similar relations between "the other countries" (as the American bloke called them) and Japan. China being the enemy of the USA, there must be the US forces in some neighbouring country. Japan is the best place for them. The US government do its utmost for China and Japan to hate each other. Nevertheless, it is not enough for the USA. The USA desires the other neighbouring countries to hate Japan. No wonder if some Japanese people think to themselves: "Damn it! The other countries hate us. The Americans must protect us from them! Let them stay in Japan!"

By posting this message, I also want to indicate one more time that the US government cannot be your friend. As to me, I am willing to be friends with the Americans. However, I am unwilling to be friends with the American politicians and to perceive the US foreign policy as good and careful one. The American double standards drive me the hell mad! It is time to revalue all American values. It is time to revalue the USA. Wherever America extends it defiles cultures.

Many American politicians and people named the USSR "The Evil Empire". Why cannot I name the USA "The Dominant Terrorist Superpower". Especially since, the USA is the Dominant Terrorist Superpower indeed.

So is Koizumi a puppet? To tell the truth, it is very difficult question to answer. I think he is not. Moreover, I do not blame the Japanese government. It is forced to be the US' ally.

The Japanese and the Chinese as well as "the other countries" must be together. They must be friends and look narrowly at the USA. In addition, tell to the US forces "3.14ss off!!!" Let the Yankees get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Ukraine, Georgia, India, etc.!

I think that Japan must have its own full value army and dismiss the Yankees.Did they (the stupid American politicians) expect us to treat them with any respect?!! (Pink Floyd)

Japan, China and Russia (as well as all the other countries) must be as closer to each other as possible to stand against the American terrorism. It is then that everything will be okay.

The Americans should not be surprised when I call the USA The Dominant Terrorist Superpower and call Bush The Terrorist Number 1. Don't they know that it was Bush who organised the terrorist acts on the 11th of September? Usama Bin Laden is the best friend of Mr Bush. My conjectures proved to be true after watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore. The British dude from Number 10 is also a terrorist, is not he?

How can the American political dolboyobs and raspizdyays (the words from Anthony Burgess' Nadsat slang) discourse on "war" "protection", et cetera? They do not know what these words mean. All the American politicians can do is extirpating the American Indians, humiliating the Afro-Americans (by the way it is only the American Indians and the Afro-Americans who have a right to live in the USA), bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombing Dresden, killing innocent Iraqi children, abusing the Iraqi prisoners, destabilising the situation in the world and the like. So heroic, golden and justified deeds! Are not they?

I am sorry for the "awful truth" but you must ascertain it. In addition, please do not be afraid to call the things by their right names.

Children's happiness and liberty are the most important things we all have. Stop killing children! Stop raping liberty! Otherwise, "Goodbye blue sky. Goodbye"?!

Here Mr Crazy Russian stands.

[Carlson]

im going to stop listening to people in this posts. many of them are just not sure what the heck they are talking about. I will take and try to understand what many of the japanese members that live in Japan think but other then that people just really dont know how much we do.

[Sukotto]

Crazy Russian - all governments have their own self interests.
Russia today has 36 billions, when before they changed their
religion from state communism to state capitalism there were none.
Ruling classes under either guise or whatever guise, always have
the security of their own self-interests first at heart.
But you knew that.


[QUOTE=Carlson]If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large. QUOTE]


humanitarian aid, perhaps.
but of course, a bomb is never humanitarian aid.



"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
-- Henry Kissinger, commenting on the US sellout of the Kurds in Iraq in 1975



war is our common enemy

[changedonrequest]

a bomb is never humanitarian aid.


That all depends on who the bomb is dropped on in the first place whether or not it is aid to humanity.

[Sukotto]

That all depends on who the bomb is dropped on in the first place whether or not it is aid to humanity.



George Orwell would be proud of this era.


Jeffery Dalmer was just, you know, spreading the love.

[changedonrequest]

Jeffery Dalmer was just, you know, spreading the love.

And Jeffery Dalmer had a "bomb" dropped on him whilst he was in prison as well.

At little late, but still a humanitarian gesture if you ask me.

[pipokun]

Crazy Russian - all governments have their own self interests.
Russia today has 36 billions, when before they changed their
religion from state communism to state capitalism there were none.
Ruling classes under either guise or whatever guise, always have
the security of their own self-interests first at heart.
But you knew that.
...

I think the crazy Russian you describe will show their pragmatic approach against the DPRK action soon withing next 2-3 hours in your country today.

[Sukotto]

I think the crazy Russian you describe will show their pragmatic approach against the DPRK action soon withing next 2-3 hours in your country today.



Oops. That was supposed to be a response to member "crazyRussian".

And, in my post it was supposed to be 36 "billionares",
no "billions".

[ricecake]

US would only completely withdraw from Japan or Pacific Rim region whenever it's militarily defeated by a new world power,probably god knows when !

[Sukotto]

US would only completely withdraw from Japan or Pacific Rim region whenever it's militarily defeated by a new world power,probably god knows when !


That will never happen. The US economy may implode, but it is very highly unlikely that the US could ever be defeated militarily, many people agree. It does afterall spend more on military than the entire world combined. IT is now actually official US policy to not even allow any other power to attempt to become its equal. Talk about paranoia.

This documentary available online at DemocracyNow!
Preventive Warriors (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/27/154222) covers recent changes in US foreign policy.

The US economy imploding isn't actually that unlikely. It could happen.
It's what helped bring down the Soviet empire afterall. Imperial overreach. Oh, and let's not forget the key, their own people.
Would it take that for 'our' government to give up its global empire (empire - of which no good can come from)?

[ricecake]

PNAC = Project for New American Century

[DoctorP]

Scott...I thought you were in prison?

[Sukotto]

I got out on July 7th. Hooray!

It was only 90 days, but still boring as jigoku.

[DoctorP]

well at least you have a story for your grandkids!

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Maybe a stupid question;
But why on earth has the USA treated Japan so completely different from Germany at the end of WWII?
First of all the German-Americans were also interned just like the Japanese-Americans, but only the Japanese-Americains received $ 20.000 each for the time they were interned during the war. The German-Americans never even asked for money.
Germany was parted in four sections, British, French, Russian and American and what's more, all war criminals were kept for ages in prison.
Japan was only occupied by America, in 1957 all war criminals were set free.

Germany has paid all debts and more than that back to their victims, Japan received the San Francisco Treaty that protected the country so that none of the war victims were paid back.

Was the USA so scared for China, for Russia in those days? Amazing.

[Han Chan]

The mentality of the US is like if Japan was still occupied. This is one of the main reasons for why many japanese would like to see the US forces go - no matter that the country is not able to defend itself right now.
Response to Elizabeth:
As I recall very few germans were actually interned, while virtually all japanese were kept in camps. A second point: the executed war criminals remained dead regardless the amnesty!
One of the main differences were that the US forces were not the only occupying forces. Wikipedia describes the difference between the aftermath of World War II in Germany and Japan:
"In the aftermath of World War II, Germany and Japan, the two major Axis Powers, responded to their role in the war in different ways. Germany sought to compensate Holocaust victims, to deliver justice to war criminals and to bear witness to the historical record. Japan sought to rebuild the nations it had attacked through monetary and developmental aid but still faced severe criticism from China and Korea for not sufficiently acknowledging and apologizing for its war crimes. Such criticism often contrasts with the response to Japan's efforts by Southeast Asian countries, and some commentators argue that Japan has faced irrational criticism when compared with Germany.
Furthermore, it is often argued that making strong efforts to rehabilitate its image serves Germany's national interest as a Central European nation with land borders and close economical ties to many neighbouring nations, whereas the island nation Japan is less dependent on trade with its immediate neighbours.
As Germany was leading the way for a united Europe, the issue for Japan became much more heated since the 1990s. Many suggested that in the past, with the pride of having the second largest economy in the world, Japan could better withstand criticisms from other economically weaker Asian countries. However, with the Japanese economy in recession since the early 1990s, the Japanese have developed a case of "apology fatigue" and have taken a harder stance against criticisms of its wartime conduct, especially China, whose economic development is making Japan concerned about Asia's balance of power."
The historic and political differences were many, but one thing makes me wonder: Why does no one seem to have any hang-ups regarding the Italians?

[ricecake]

Japan sought to rebuild the nations it had attacked through monetary and developmental aid but still faced severe criticism from China and Korea for not sufficiently acknowledging and apologizing for its war crimes.



Those so-called " aid packages " all tie to Japanese investments in both Korea and China in return benefitting Japan mutually,not reparations what Japan still owes these two countries and civilian families Japanese Imperial Army inflicted great harms upon.

[ricecake]

(1) But why on earth has the USA treated Japan so completely different from Germany at the end of WWII ?

(2) First of all the German-Americans were also interned just like the Japanese-Americans, but only the Japanese-Americains received $ 20.000 each for the time they were interned during the war. The German-Americans never even asked for money.

(3) Germany has paid all debts and more than that back to their victims, Japan received the San Francisco Treaty that protected the country so that none of the war victims were paid back.

(4) Was the USA so scared for China, for Russia in those days? Amazing.


(1) Japanese were good ass-kissers to the American conquerors opposed to Europeans historically regarded Yankees as " country cousins ".No countries in that region had political clout in wrestling USA on aftermath WW 2 issues.

(2) Many Japanese-Americans lost properties,like homes and farmlands etc.Ronald Reagan issued an official apology with $1 billion in reparation during the Japan/USA honeymoon decade of 1980's.

(3) Japan never paid a penny in reparations,basically got away with murder of 20-40 million mostly yellow folks.

(4 ) Not really,it was the beginning era of American Empire.USA " sold out " China,as it divided the world by ideologies.American military complex played " war games " in proxy wars with Russia and China around the globe as it positioned itself as the prominent freedom fighter.

[ricecake]

(1) Germany was parted in four sections, British, French, Russian and American.

(2) Japan was only occupied by America,in 1957 all war criminals were set free.



(1) Russia militarily grabbed Japan's 4 northern islands,president Yeltsin rejected Japan's $10 billion offer for them in the late 1990's.Brits and French weren't in direct combat with Japan.

(2) America won the Pacific War militarily defeated Japan.There were backdoor negotiations including access to Japan's biological warfare research conducted in old Manchuria.

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Han Chan and ricecake,

Thank you very much for your clear answers!
I was almost 15 years old, when Japan occupied the former Dutch East Indies, today Indonesia.

I have started a website (not completely finished yet) about Before,During and After WW II; www.dutch-east-indies.com

I am very glad with the answers from both of you, thanks!

[Crazy Russian]

Crazy Russian - all governments have their own self interests.
Russia today has 36 billions, when before they changed their
religion from state communism to state capitalism there were none.
Ruling classes under either guise or whatever guise, always have
the security of their own self-interests first at heart.
But you knew that.
[QUOTE=Carlson]If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein痴 army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large. QUOTE]
humanitarian aid, perhaps.
but of course, a bomb is never humanitarian aid.
"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
-- Henry Kissinger, commenting on the US sellout of the Kurds in Iraq in 1975
war is our common enemy



Concerning the 'religion':

We also have the different mentality now. I've communicated with the Americans a lot. They seem to me to still have the Cold War mentality. It's very pity. Have a good head on your shoulders! Don't let your president rape your mind, please. And believe me that the Chinese, the Iraqi, the North Koreans, etc., are not your enemies. By the way, do you know that the Russians is high on the list of the nations that like the Americans. The Cold War is over. Whaddaya think? :)

War is our common enemy.

It means the following:

Those who unleash wars are our common enemies.

Consequently:

George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert are our common enemies.

Well done! No sophistry. Just simple (and irrefutable) logic, isn't it? :) :) :)

If you must know, I partly agree with you. I support only just wars and those making the world better. Good example: the wars between the French and Russian Empires in the 19th century. The adversaries were matches and respected each other...

The wars you country has waged are stupid and nonsensical. They have been waged for the sole purpose of destabilising the world. (The USA does benefit from it, doesn't it?)

Undoubtedly, you government has its own interests (including in Japan). Nevertheless, it would be great if your politicians respect the opinions and interests of the other nations and stop weaving coward and surreptitious plots. (Though, on the other hand, they don't respect even the Americans.)

As regards Russia, she has always (except for several Soviet periods) tried to help the world and her neighbours (without carrying about her own interests).

Russia saved the world from Napoleon and Hitler. I guess that she must save it from the American and Jewish aggression. The American and Israeli regimes are worse than that of Nazi Germany, and especially much worse than the Soviet one. Olmert and Bush are much worse than Hitler. I respect Hitler for his having been honest. He said: 'Our main purpose is conquering Russia and the Russians'. Your politicians concoct stupid tales about weapons of mass destruction, fighting against communism, terrorism, et ainsi de suite. Why cannot Bush avow that the sh!t happening in the Middle East is genocide of the Muslims? The USA uses Israel as the platform to strangle the Muslim world and Japan as the platform to strangle China, North Korea and Russia. Why won't you want to try to invade Russia? Though I know why...

I think that the Americans dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the purpose of occupying Japan forever and using her as the instrument to exert pernicious influence on the other countries...

...So must the US forces leave Japan? Surely they must get out of Japan. But not now. A bit later... :suggestivewink: :)

And I do hope that the Americans will respect opinions and interests of Japan and the Japanese.

Tel est mon avis...

[Sukotto]

Crazy_Russian - Sort of makes sense. I'm not sure there is a such
thing as a 'just war'. It might be that war just is. That said,
I do not believe it would be justified for someone during the 1930s-40s
to tell Jews, Slavs, Roma, Gays, Catholics, etc. to just sit back and take it.


I must say, I know very little about the middle east coflict,
except that the US has no treaty with Israel although Israel is the
number 1 or 2 recipient of US foreign military aid.
-Hezbola was first created as a result of Israel invading Lebanon the first time.
-Hamas was funded by Israel in its infant days as a divisive technique because the PLO was secular to include all Palestinians. About 1/3 of Palestinians are Christians.

But, as Ariel Sharon said of the occupied territories,
they cannot remain occupied forever.
Same with over 700 known or acknowledged US bases in over 120
different countries, and specifically Japan, they cannot be there forever.


I will try to keep up with what is going on in the world.
It is difficult sometimes.
The vast majority of all media are owned by like 3 or 4 large corporations.
Our only local newspaper, owned by Ganette, recently cut back drastically
on there world news coverage and moved it FROM the front page.
WHAT?!? They claim they were responding to readers wishes.
That's ok, for me anyway, I get my news via the net.
When will that go?
Time to bust out the ole shortwave radio.

[Crazy Russian]

Okay. 'A just war' sounds not very well. The word 'just' is too 'moral'. I should have written 'the wars that command respect and admiration', not 'just wars.'

In 1812 Napoleon invaded the Russian Empire. He considered Russia to be the only obstacle to conquer the world. At the same time, he respected Russian soldiers and was delighted with their courage. That war wasn't the war of hatred, dislike and aversion. The opponents (I don't want to call them 'enemies') respected each other. They were almost friends.

Several quotations:

'Les russes se conduisirent vaillamment, et, chose rare a la querre, on vit deux masses d'infanterie marcher resolument l'une contre l'autre sans qu'aucune des deux ceda avant d'etre abordee.'

Napoleon: ' Quelques bataillons russes montrerent de l'intrepidite.'

Napoleon: 'De beaux hommes!' (about the Russian soldiers).

Et cetera...

On the one hand, I am delighted with Napoleon. He was genius and one of the greatest human beings ever. He braved the world.

On the other hand, I am delighted with the Russian soldiers who beat the Napoleon's Army (perhaps, the Greatest Army ever) when it invaded the Russian Empire.

I'd like to die in such a war...

[Sukotto]

Mahatam Ghandi & the Indian people defeated (the British) empire
without war/violence

Maybe the only 'good war' is in the fantasy land of video games?

It seems to bring together people of many different cultures.

[Crazy Russian]

I know that it is very difficult to understand.
It is difficult to explain as well.
So:
VIVE LES DIFFERENCES!!!
:wave: :wave: :wave:

[caster51]

Japan never paid a penny in reparations,basically got away with murder of 20-40 million mostly yellow folks

http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/4759/130324-1.html

korean case is so funny ...
Japan insisted that Japan also pay amends money directly to Korean's( south and north) people.
however S-koean G refused that
so Japan paid total amount money to the South Korea government.
korean G didnt announced that japan paid money with including N-korean one

S-korean G stole them :wave:

[GodEmperorLeto]

That will never happen. The US economy may implode, but it is very highly unlikely that the US could ever be defeated militarily, many people agree.

Those people are wrong. At the rate China is catching up, we'd be able to defeat them in either a limited war, or, in full-scale war, through use of nuclear weapons. And I don't think we have the stomach ever to use them again (thank God), so that rules out that possibility.

Economically, if we begin to collapse (and that is a possibility, since our entire economy hinges on gas), you must admit that China will be one of the sharks looking to bite a piece of meat off of our dying carcass. A small squabble over the PacRim with our economy in the gutter would secure China's future as a military power in that sphere, as well as severely damage American business interests there.

Honestly, the days of the American hegemony are numbered. Now, I know plenty of people worldwide would rejoice to hear that, but I have to ask, who is willing to fill our shoes as global policeman? Someone has got to step up to the task. And so far, in my opinion, we haven't abused that position half as much as we could have. Or half as much as China or any other country would.

But why on earth has the USA treated Japan so completely different from Germany at the end of WWII?
Excellent points!

However...
Was the USA so scared for China, for Russia in those days? Amazing.
You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.

The mentality of the US is like if Japan was still occupied. This is one of the main reasons for why many japanese would like to see the US forces go - no matter that the country is not able to defend itself right now.
It can't. Their very constitution forbids an army larger than the Self-Defense Force.

The historic and political differences were many, but one thing makes me wonder: Why does no one seem to have any hang-ups regarding the Italians?
I had a great-uncle who remembers the Italians lynching Mussoulini and dragging him through the streets. While he did make the trains run on time, not too many Italians really wanted to get bogged down in Ethiopia, nor did they like the idea of having German "allies" occupy their country in order to "help" fight off the Americans and British.

They seem to me to still have the Cold War mentality.
WHAT? What Americans are you talking to? Half the Americans under the age of 25 think the Cold War was just a story made up by the Republicans. When I think of Soviets I think of the Cold War. When I think of Russians I think of hot women, cold weather, Stolichnaya vodka, and organized crime.

Don't let your president rape your mind, please. And believe me that the Chinese, the Iraqi, the North Koreans, etc., are not your enemies.
1) Our president is not raping our mind. We are quite divided on politics right now. It is almost as bad as our political divisions on the eve of our Civil War in 1861.
2) The Chinese are pissed off at the West for 200 or 300 years of abuse, political leveraging, manipulation, hegemony, you name it. Queen Victoria of England was the biggest drugdealer in human history, and she pushed her goods on China. We have a reason to be a little fearful of them. Especially since I remember watching Tienammen Square as a young boy on TV.
3) Most of us don't think the Iraqis are our enemy. Some of us think Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are our enemies. There is a difference. I've spoken to plenty of U.S. servicemen who have been in and out of Iraq, and almost unanimously they say that we are doing the right thing. (Note: there are some dissenting soldiers, but I have yet to meet any of them).
4) As for North Korean, Kim Jong Il is building bombs that can reach California. Why? For protection? From whom? South Korea? Why does he need a bomb that can hit San Francisco if he needs to hit Seoul? The guy is a modern-day Viking, making us pay his Danegeld. There's an old English saying, "If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." They would know.

Those who unleash wars are our common enemies.

Consequently:

George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert are our common enemies.

Well done! No sophistry. Just simple (and irrefutable) logic, isn't it?

Who unleashed a war in Chechniya? Why didn't you just let them go? Under that "irrefutable logic", Boris Yeltsin is your enemy, too.

You say this, and then you laud Napoleon later?

No, this logic is far from irrefutable. Besides, if England had "unleashed a war" against Hitler in 1938, it would have avoided a lot of trouble. But it didn't, because it strove for a temporary peace.

Well, there's an old Roman saying, "A bad peace is even worse than war." And a Greek philosopher once said, "If you are too eager to preserve peace, you may find yourself with a master."

The wars you country has waged are stupid and nonsensical. They have been waged for the sole purpose of destabilising the world.
So Stalin was championing stability when he invaded Eastern European countries?

Let's run down the gamut of American wars.

War for Independence (1775-1783): Goal was independence from England.
Barbary Pirates' War: Thomas Jefferson's war against the Barbary States of North Africa, who were famous for raiding the coasts of both Europe and America and capturing Christian slaves. After this war, the slave-raiding and extortion stopped forever.
War of 1812 (1812-1815): U.S. fought England over their raiding of American merchant ships and impressment of American sailors into the British navy.
Mexican War: A border-dispute over the Texas border with Mexico, as well as over Santa Anna reneging on his deal to let us buy the rest of the continent. Even though we won, we still paid the Mexican government for the land we conquered, and we paid them the previously agreed-upon amount. Then we bought the "Gatsden Purchase", a small sliver of land, from Mexico for 8 times the amount that we paid for the rest of the territory we got.
U.S. Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865): This war was probably the most noble and honorable war fought in human history, because it was fought for ideals. The North fought to preserve the Union and thereby the Constitution, and to end slavery; the Confederacy fought for the right of individual states to have more power over their destinies. No religion. No money. No greed. No kings telling them to. The war was fought purely for idealism.
Spanish-American War: We were sick of the Spanish interfering in the Americas, and the Carribbeans wanted independence, which we gave most of them. Besides, we thought they blew up one of our ships (it turns out that it was a boiler explosion, not a torpedo, but we didn't find that out until recently).
American-Filippino War: A war fought to maintain our hold on the Philippines as a colony. Although we defeated the rebels, we agreed to give the Philippines limited autonomy with the promise of eventual sovereignty/independence, a promise we made good on in 1946.
Indian Wars: Wars fought against Native American tribes fighting against the United States government. Many times the Native Americans were justified in their fights against the U.S., yes.
World War I (1917-1918): We fought in the last year of a war that was already tearing Europe to shreds.
World War II (1941-1945): We fought this war because the Japanese and Germans declared war on us. By the way, this, again, was already tearing up Europe. And we were isolationist before and didn't want to get involved.
Korean War: We were part of a United Nations army preserving the sovereignty of South Korea.
Vietnam War (1965-1972): We were fighting alongside the South Vietnamese army to keep South Vietnam from becoming Communist, just like in Korea. Unlike Korea, we were largely unsupported in this fight. We were fighting because we were afraid of the Domino Theory, which, ironically, turned out to be true. Khmer Rouge ring a bell?
The Persian Gulf War (1991): We fought a war, alongside the United Nations, to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. We should have removed Hussein then, but namby-pambies didn't want to finish the job.
Afghanistan: The Taliban was an open and proud supporter of Al Qaeda, who had just flown planes into the World Trade Center.
Iraq: Rumors of NBCs (which, it was recently reported, turned out to be true) as well as rumors of Al Qaeda links (which have yet to be proven), as well as the fact that we should have knocked Hussein out back in 1991.

Well, the only wars to foster instability could be the Spanish-American War as well as the current Iraqi war. So, no, not every war has been a war to foster instability.

You are so biased against the United States it is amazing. No wonder you think the Cold War is still on. You seem incapable of anything but insulting Americans and their history. I'd be surprised if there were any Americans who didn't give you a cold reception because of your attitude.

Russia saved the world from Napoleon and Hitler.

Umm, no. Wellington saved the world from Napolean. And if it wasn't for the war on the Western front dividing the Nazi army, you'd be speaking German right now.

On the one hand, I am delighted with Napoleon. He was genius and one of the greatest human beings ever. He braved the world.

On the other hand, I am delighted with the Russian soldiers who beat the Napoleon's Army (perhaps, the Greatest Army ever) when it invaded the Russian Empire.


I'd rather die at Gettysburg, 1963, fighting to set men free.

Your hero-worship of Napoleon is hypocritical. The man was a tyrant who manipulated a frightened France that had undergone a decade of chaos during the Reign of Terror. He modeled his ascension to the throne after Augustus, and called himself l'empereur. His greed and ambition knew no boundaries. However, given how much the Russians are Francophiles, I'm not surprised you'd stylize him as a great man while lumping all Americans together as a ragtag bunch of bullies and assholes.

Mahatam Ghandi & the Indian people defeated (the British) empire without war/violence

Because the British Empire was so war-weary by that point. The British of the 1880s would have massacred him and his followers.

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

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

Hello,

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

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

[Sukotto]

Well, there's an old Roman saying, "A bad peace is even worse than war."


Tell that to those who are killed.

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


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


For now that's all the time I have. :bow:

[GodEmperorLeto]

Tell that to those who are killed.
the ancient Romans were imperialist meanies.

Spare me your plebian bleeding-heart diatribes.

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

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

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

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

And weren't the Greeks a bunch of militarists too?{/QUOTE]

The Greeks had a society based around the polis. Military service was the duty of every citizen. You did not deserve a voice in the governing of your country if you were not willing to put your life on the line for it. If that were true today, there'd be plenty of Democrats and Republicans without the right to vote today.

Considering your comment about "telling that to those who were killed", you probably would be bereft of the right to vote as well.

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

What makes a war dishonorable?

Besides, Mark Twain didn't do much fighting during the U.S. Civil War, he was part of a Confederate militia that disbanded after two weeks. What would he know about dishonorable war? Not all war is dishonorable. Despite what American Southerners might say about the "War of Northern Aggression", any man who dies fighting to preserve an idea and to free other men is a hero to me.

[nurizeko]

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

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

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

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

America is always involved in a conflict somehwere, but its always far from the "provinces" of the american "empire".

[Crazy Russian]

'When I think of Russians I think of hot women, cold weather, Stolichnaya vodka, and organized crime.'

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

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

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

'Who unleashed a war in Chechniya?'

I hate Yeltsin. He is my enemy.

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

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

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

'Your hero-worship of Napoleon is hypocritical. The man was a tyrant who manipulated a frightened France that had undergone a decade of chaos during the Reign of Terror. He modeled his ascension to the throne after Augustus, and called himself l'empereur. His greed and ambition knew no boundaries. However, given how much the Russians are Francophiles, I'm not surprised you'd stylize him as a great man while lumping all Americans together as a ragtag bunch of bullies and assholes.'

I respect Napoleon for other merits.

'A bad peace is even worse than war.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? I'm not sure.

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

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

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

'Wellington saved the world from Napoleon.'

I knew you would write something like that.

[Sukotto]

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


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

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

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

Far from being "left-wing buzzwords".

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


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

[Crazy Russian]

2 GodEmperorLeto:

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

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

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

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

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

http://members.tripod.com/~shtyetz_john/lienz-cossacks.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NECESSARILY READ THIS:

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

Find out more about the incident in Lienz.

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

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

[Crazy Russian]

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




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

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

about the WWII and Pearl Harbour.

Here they are:

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

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

[yamada]

Why couldn't Australia and the British occupy Japan together with the USA
just after the war? Once again; why this difference between Japan and Germany, while they were both the enemies during World War Two?

Because, US didn't allow them to do so. What was most important to US was China just after the war. They didn't think that Japan had become a contry which had such an economical power today Japan has.

[Sukotto]

Of all the posts on Okinawa, this seemed the most neutral to post an article by a US GI who was there in the early 70s....

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

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

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

[ricecake]

Good read ...

[ricecake]

Good read ...

[pharaoh21]

That will never happen. The US economy may implode, but it is very highly unlikely that the US could ever be defeated militarily, many people agree. It does afterall spend more on military than the entire world combined. IT is now actually official US policy to not even allow any other power to attempt to become its equal.

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

[Sukotto]

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


If it came to that the crazies that run the US empire might just use their nukes
rather than lose their power.

[yamakazu]

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

[Sukotto]

The US has many faults,but we have more.


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

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


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

Maybe even countries (the 'state') themselves are a fault?

[CBT1979]

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

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

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

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

I disagree. All countries, peoples, & societies (as well as individuals) have faults. Some seemingly worse.
I think, if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.
Therefore, personally, and being from the states, I would say the US has possible the most faults. Even if it were that one: attempting to maintain top by force, violence, and/or other dirty means.
Maybe someday we can have equal relationships with all people/s.
I don't know how we can get their other than the means should probably equal the ends or else the ends are not worth getting to.
I don't know. I'm no angel.
Maybe even countries (the 'state') themselves are a fault?

very well said! :cool:
It doesn't matter which country or people we are talking. We are all human, and whether a nation behaves defensively or offensively depends on the social circumstances like wealth, ideology etc. but the core remains the same.
We all have good and bad sides like the YingYang principle.

[kellymich]

Administrations come and go … but the geopolitical realities of the world remain.

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

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

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

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

[kellymich]

I disagree. All countries, peoples, & societies (as well as individuals) have faults. Some seemingly worse.
I think, if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.
Therefore, personally, and being from the states, I would say the US has possible the most faults. Even if it were that one: attempting to maintain top by force, violence, and/or other dirty means.
Maybe someday we can have equal relationships with all people/s.
I don't know how we can get their other than the means should probably equal the ends or else the ends are not worth getting to.
I don't know. I'm no angel.
Maybe even countries (the 'state') themselves are a fault?

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

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

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

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

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

I am a firm believer in hierarchy, even when we try to abolish it we find that it is still there. I simply want to make sure that the wisest and the very best are on top because in that way everyone benefits. When they are not, everyone suffers.

[Sukotto]

if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.

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

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


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


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

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

He also says (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=586) In South Korea and the Philippines, mass movements fought against oppressive American imposed and supported dictators
It is that type of "force & violence or other dirty means" I am thinking of, that is quite well documented in many places, that the US gov't is in fault.
And hypocritical since they always claim to be supporting 'democracy'.


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

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



back to the title of the string:

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

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

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


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


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

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


Or Clinton, a list
Don't look back (http://members.aol.com/Bblum6/aer38.htm)

or Kosovo specific:
The New Military Humanism book review (http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/oct00hardesty.htm)
Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service (http://covertaction.org//content/view/115/77/)
Pages from the Liberals' War (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03142006.html)


'truth is the first casualty of war'
Time for peace, empire is wrong and war cannot be trusted

[Sukotto]

I am a firm believer in hierarchy,
Or a much shorter response.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct to assume
that
you don't believe in democracy?

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


“I want a revolution that changes the very nature of how power is structured and perceived, that challenges all systems of domination and control, that nurtures the empowerment of individuals and the collective power (http://www.narconews.com/Issue35/article1121.html) we can wield when we act together in solidarity.”
–Starhawk, US activist and writer

[kellymich]

Or a much shorter response.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but am I correct to assume
that
you don't believe in democracy?
there's been times of relatively little heirarchy.
no reason we can't do this some more
“I want a revolution that changes the very nature of how power is structured and perceived, that challenges all systems of domination and control, that nurtures the empowerment of individuals and the

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

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

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

To try to eliminate power and hierarchy is to misunderstand the ve