President Bush

[krix]

I think officially Kim Il-Sung, his dead father, still is the president... yikes..

Let's place a bet, which one will erupt first in this highly volatile region?

a. North Korea

b. China over Taiwan

c. China over the Nansha or various other islets

Some analysts have compared today's East Asia to pre-WWI Europe, it's really scary. US presence is of utmost importance to keep the peace! Too bad that many people in Okinawa and apparently S. Korea dislike the troops that are contributing to their safety.

As for the poster who said that Japan is completely dependent on US troops for its presence, this is true, but you know that this is being heavily debated in Japan? The so-called Article 9 of the Japanese constitution (devised by the US) prohibits Japan to have any kind of a military. For many years now Japanese right wing politicians have been pushing for changing this, which could potentially add to the tension in the region, as China and even S. Korea (not to mention N. Korea) would react with great hostility to this.

Edited June 22, 2006 by krix

[TJones]

Some analysts have compared today's East Asia to pre-WWI Europe, it's really scary. US presence is of utmost importance to keep the peace! Too bad that many people in Okinawa and apparently S. Korea dislike the troops that are contributing to their safety.

I have heard the same thing from some friends who were stationed in S.Korea. Huge protests at the gates of the DMZ, (38th parallel), by the S.Koreans and our troops sitting there having to watch it all unfold, and the troops are like"don't these people realize that we are here for their safety ?". It's just lunacy.

Edited June 22, 2006 by TJones

[DJ V Lawrence]

I think officially Kim Il-Sung, his dead father, still is the president... yikes..

Once again, that is accurate.

[RedScare]

As for the poster who said that Japan is completely dependent on US troops for its presence, this is true, but you know that this is being heavily debated in Japan? The so-called Article 9 of the Japanese constitution (devised by the US) prohibits Japan to have any kind of a military. For many years now Japanese right wing politicians have been pushing for changing this, which could potentially add to the tension in the region, as China and even S. Korea (not to mention N. Korea) would react with great hostility to this.

Japan's constitution disallows a military for any purpose other than self-defense. They are debating whether to do away with this provision because it causes problems as to what constitutes self-defense.

The "lunacy" of South Koreans wanting US forces out relates to two annoyances. One is the belief by some South Koreans that the US presence actually exacerbates tensions between North and South Korea, frustrating attempts to unify the two countries. The second is the local anger over crimes of violence committed occasionally by US soldiers against the local citizenry.

Japan is not as troubled by troops in its country, but the locals occasionally erupt in anger at crimes committed by US soldiers there as well.

[krix]

I have heard the same thing from some friends who were stationed in S.Korea. Huge protests at the gates of the DMZ, (38th parallel), by the S.Koreans and out troops sitting there having to watch it all unfold, and the troops are like"don't these people realize that we are here for their safety ?". It's just lunacy.

Well I have been to Okinawa and have mainly heard the Okinawan side of the story. I don't know much about the situation in S. Korea, but in Okinawa, you have the following factors:

1. Okinawans have always felt neglected, sometimes even oppressed, by the "mainlanders". They mainly feel that it is unfair that in Okinawa, which is less than 1% of Japan's total population, "U.S. military installations occupy about 10.4 percent of the total land usage. Approximately 74.7 percent of all the U.S. military facilities in Japan are located on the island of Okinawa." (from wikipedia)

2. Also, Japanese in general tend to blame foreigners for crime. Be it Chinese exchange students, or American GIs, of course incidents happen, but this is a general tendency in Japan (this might be a factor in S. Korea as well). For both groups, there have been cases, that drew a lot of attention and resentment, i.e. the Chinese exchange student murdering a whole family in cold blood, and several rape cases in Okinawa involving American soldiers. Of course Japan is a tightly knit society that tends to exert a lot of pressure thus minimizing crime, but it is also true that the recessive economy has led to many Japanese committing crimes (don't have any statistics handy here).

3. Then, Okinawan society is actually split about this. Farmers, whose land was taken for the bases, have been paid generous compensation, or actually have been reinstated as legitimate landowners and are paid high rents. This of course has divided the society in those that profit from the situation, and those that don't. So this contributes to societal tensions.

4. Lastly, the national debate I mentioned in an earlier post. Fortunately, the number of revisionist nationalists in Japan is very low, but they do perceive the prominent US presence as some kind of national shame, while the extreme leftists follow some kind of naive pacifism demanding the US troops leave Japan completely. Now I saw something in Okinawa which surely would incense some Japanese nationalists, a gate to an American base was actually a torii, which is a gate to a Shintoist shrine, this could be perceived as sacrilegious or provocative. At least Okinawans don't really care about this one, since Shintoism is an import from the mainland ...

I mean Okinawa is a great place, I liked it a lot, it is a unique place in Japan, with distinct culture and traditions, but I would really hope people understood that US troops are there not only to represent US interests, but also for the security of their own country.

Edited June 22, 2006 by krix

[krix]

Japan's constitution disallows a military for any purpose other than self-defense. They are debating whether to do away with this provision because it causes problems as to what constitutes self-defense.

From a translation of the constitution:

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

It disallows any kind of military. That's why they call it awkwardly "jieitai", self-defense troops. It's been a constant ride on the verge to unconstitutionality. I think your statement more accurately describes the German situation.

[RedScare]

It disallows any kind of military. That's why they call it awkwardly "jieitai", self-defense troops. It's been a constant ride on the verge to unconstitutionality. I think your statement more accurately describes the German situation.

I believe you are correct on both counts. The Japanese definition may be semantic, but semantics is exactly what they are debating.

Thanks for the correction.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

2. Also, Japanese in general tend to blame foreigners for crime.

Sort of like some of us do with the people from New Orleans ........

[nmainguy]

No. What you found was that you took the Capital: Baghdad - in 3 months or less.

Al Qaeda is not something Saddam Hussein would have tolerated. You did not attack Iraq for WMDs, nor because they were harboring Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and Saddam were enemys. They were never friends, they were foes. Their animosity is rooted in politics.

Al Qaeda, in Iraq, is a by-product of the Iraq War. Its an after effect.

You attacked Iraq for strategic interests and other concerns which i dont know of yet.

WMDs were just the cover lie for what Cheney and Bush THOUGHT was going to happen. Of course now it's clear the country is in civil war, there is no link to Al Qaeda because as you said, Saddam would never have tolerated any rival to his own power and no one showered us with flowers and no oil revenue has paid for this useless war which has taken the lives of over 2500 of our kids. I don't know why Cheney and Bush lied. Maybe it was the "he tried to kill my Dad" revenge thing Bush had going on during the 2000 election or Cheney's irrational idea we could kill two birds with one stone: get rid of Saddam and control Iraq's oil. Well they are not rid of Saddam because he has to keep hiring lawyers to replace the ones the insurgents are killing off and as for oil? What a joke.

[Parrothead]

My cousin, Chuck, flies helicopters in Iraq, one of the most dangerous jobs around. He totally understands why we are there and agrees with it 100%. He wouldn't have VOLUNTEERED to go if he didn't.

News flash: all 2400-odd soldiers who died for our country VOLUNTEERED to join our military, and knew exactly what they were doing when they did so. Our troops don't need anyone's "help" in getting them back. They're big boys, not "kids". Young men, yes. I know Chuck is insulted when he hears that kind of crap, and I don't blame him.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

My cousin, Chuck, flies helicopters in Iraq, one of the most dangerous jobs around. He totally understands why we are there and agrees with it 100%. He wouldn't have VOLUNTEERED to go if he didn't.

News flash: all 2400-odd soldiers who died for our country VOLUNTEERED to join our military, and knew exactly what they were doing when they did so. Our troops don't need anyone's "help" in getting them back. They're big boys, not "kids". Young men, yes. I know Chuck is insulted when he hears that kind of crap, and I don't blame him.

Another news flash, all didnt die in combat situations. Amazing people dont post that when shouting out the numbers.......... tends to happen when you play politics.

[west20th]

Another news flash, all didnt die in combat situations.

Does that distinction matter? However they died they died. Dead is dead, combat related or not. All the men and women that died were killed because of the Iraq war. Whether you are for or against the war there is no getting around that fact. The 2500+ are the military's numbers, they are not some fudged statistic used to make an anti-war argument. Don't you think the military includes all deaths, combat related or not, for a reason? Are non-combat related deaths any less tragic? Are the ones who died in non-combat related incidents any less heroic?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Does that distinction matter? However they died they died. Dead is dead, combat related or not. All the men and women that died were killed because of the Iraq war. Whether you are for or against the war there is no getting around that fact. The 2500+ are the military's numbers, they are not some fudged statistic used to make an anti-war argument. Don't you think the military includes all deaths, combat related or not, for a reason? Are non-combat related deaths any less tragic? Are the ones who died in non-combat related incidents any less heroic?

As a proud American and former military person, a US military death is tragic on any level. When using the numbers to justify stupid political arguements, i dont agree with that now, in the past and will not agree with it in the future. Blanket statements about US deaths in Iraq are STUPID when used for political reasons. If those deaths are used for political crap, make the distinction from combat and non combat.

[west20th]

If those deaths are used for political crap, make the distinction from combat and non combat.

I still don't see the distinction from combat to non-combat related deaths. Isn't your argument that death totals shouldn't be used at all politically? I'm not arguing for or against that viewpoint. I just don't see why you find using the combat related deaths any less repugnant than using the total number of deaths if you don't believe the death totals should be used at all. Not counting all deaths, for any reason, just seems wrong.

Edited June 28, 2006 by west20th

[nmainguy]

Regardless of your politics, keeping the death tally up front and center allows everyone to determine for themselves if this war was justified or not; worth it or not.

As of today

2526 total

2040 in combat

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Regardless of your politics, keeping the death tally up front and center allows everyone to determine for themselves if this war was justified or not; worth it or not.

As of today

2526 total

2040 in combat

Combat death tally....keep it str8 if you are able to. Military personnel unfortunately die in non combat roles all the time. Do not use those numbers in with combat fatalities to justify political garbage.

[RedScare]

Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment to not allow non-combat deaths on foreign soil to be used in political arguments. I'm sure John Cornyn will sponsor it for you.

[nmainguy]

Combat death tally....keep it str8 if you are able to. Military personnel unfortunately die in non combat roles all the time. Do not use those numbers in with combat fatalities to justify political garbage.

You seem to have a tendancy to refer to anything and anyone you don't like as garbage.

Theres nothing political about 2526 killed in Iraq. You just don't seem to be able to handle it.

As of today

2526 total casualties

2040 in combat casualties

Does that make you feel better now that I've simplified it for you?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

You seem to have a tendancy to refer to anything and anyone you don't like as garbage.

Theres nothing political about 2526 killed in Iraq. You just don't seem to be able to handle it.

As of today

2526 total casualties

2040 in combat casualties

Does that make you feel better now that I've simplified it for you?

Dont play with me child. Your infantile comments with be forever smashed into oblivion when you play with me, now that i have lots of freetime. Have wrapped up 2 deals with idiots that dont beleive in national pride

[nmainguy]

Dont play with me child. Your infantile comments with be forever smashed into oblivion when you play with me, now that i have lots of freetime. Have wrapped up 2 deals with idiots that dont beleive in national pride

That's how you deal with dissenting opinions? Threatening to "smash" me? How American of you-not.

BTW: Reckless threats won't get you far in life so maybe you need to chill.

Edited June 29, 2006 by nmainguy

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

That's how you deal with dissenting opinions? Threatening to "smash" me? How American of you-not.

Nope, it is the way i deal with lunatics that begin a name calling campaign. I may not have responded sooner, but it should not be taken as being forgotten or a weakeness. Move on to someone else with your bull, for you are way the hell out of your league , junior.

[nmainguy]

Nope, it is the way i deal with lunatics that begin a name calling campaign. I may not have responded sooner, but it should not be taken as being forgotten or a weakeness. Move on to someone else with your bull, for you are way the hell out of your league , junior.

I did no name calling. You seem more cohearant in the daytime. At least you aren't threating people and imagining "name calling campaign"s.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I did no name calling. You seem more cohearant in the daytime. At least you aren't threating people and imagining "name calling campaign"s.

Again, dont play with me junior. Move on to something more suited for your limited understanding.

[nmainguy]

Again, dont play with me junior. Move on to something more suited for your limited understanding.

Man, are you for real? Because you come off as just another gung-ho punk with idle threats.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Man, are you for real? Because you come off as just another gung-ho punk with idle threats.

Still swimming in your own filth? Take a bath, you stink............

[mls1202]

I thought I'd chime in with this post to break up the flow of the back and forth (and valueless, might I add) commentary between 1stWord and nmain. What's with all this "infantile" accusations? Aren't both of you of the older persuasion?

I'm going to get killed by friendly fire...

Can we get back on topic? China has finally put some pressure on North Korea--something that they have not yet done before.

[nmainguy]

I thought I'd chime in with this post to break up the flow of the back and forth (and valueless, might I add) commentary between 1stWord and nmain. What's with all this "infantile" accusations? Aren't both of you of the older persuasion?

I'm going to get killed by friendly fire...

Can we get back on topic? China has finally put some pressure on North Korea--something that they have not yet done before.

I apologize for allowing myself to get sucked in by moon's threats. Threats of any kind-physical in this case-provoke a natural reaction but I guess I didn't know when to stop reacting. As the younger persuasion would say: My bad.

[TJones]

I try to leave HAIF alone for ONE night, and MAYHEM breaks out. WTF !

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I try to leave HAIF alone for ONE night, and MAYHEM breaks out. WTF !

[DJ V Lawrence]

News flash: all 2400-odd soldiers who died for our country VOLUNTEERED to join our military, and knew exactly what they were doing when they did so.

That's not entirely accurate...

I signed up for the Army in October 2000. Started my enlistment in June 2001. There was no Afghanistan, Iraq, or September 11th. We all knew the risks of joining the military, but we could never imagine how America would change after that kind of attack on 9/11. I can guarantee that no one I knew in basic training could ever guess that some of us would be in combat against the Taliban a few months afterwards.

Everyone who has signed to the military at some point knew that dying for your country could be a possibility, but no one I know that signed on ever actually anticipated being the one to do just that. The friend I lost thought he would come back home to his wife and three kids, but his helicopter was shot down as he was arriving. Life changes when a debate becomes reality...

Edited June 29, 2006 by DJ V Lawrence