vinniram wrote:

sorry, but the Okinawans paint a VERY different picture. I recently wrote an article on the topic, and if you think these rapes are a one-off event, you are VERY wrong. And, just recently in Yokosuka, a taxi driver and a woman were both brutally murdered by US troops. Just saying that crimes are associated with these troops, and the Okinawan people are sick of being ignored on the rape issue.

Facts are facts, inconvenient or not.  Rapes are rare (doesn't make them any less obnoxious, but they are rare).  So are murders.  Again, you would seem to be hyperventilating.

See: http://www.dprkstudies.org/documents/asia015.html

vinniram wrote:

ok I have no idea what you mean by me hyperventilating, because ventilation wise I'm going perfectly fine on this end ^_^ but I do know that the people to whom Okinawa belongs are the OKINAWAN PEOPLE, not the americans. So it only makes sense that whether or not the troops stay should be the decision of the Okinawan people, and about 90% of them want the troops out.

I only hope that the demands of the Okinawan people are met when the Japanese government stops backflipping to the demands of the US government and starts listening to its own people... Okinawa for the Okinawans!!!

Have you thought about a career as a populist politician? 

The Japanese government is making the same kind of decisions it has always made.  Initially, foreigners were kept "at bay" down in "remote" Shimoda.  So the situation has actually improved as far as most Japanese are concerned, because now those nasty foreigners are even farther "at bay", down in Okinawa.

But the Japanese government has determined that they are a necessary evil for the time being, and until they change their mind about that, at least some of those troops will stay there.

You have to understand that Japan likes having a nuclear umbrella, even though Japan doesn't want to sully its own hands with its own nukes.

Get it?

And actually, Okinawa belongs to the Satsuma, who lease it back to Japan in perpetuity.    (Maybe like Guantanamo.)  Complain to the Kagoshima Chamber of Commerce, perhaps.  But Okinawa hasn't belonged to Okinawans for quite some time (roughly 400 years).  Complain to Tokyo about that.

Last edited by Wally (2009 June 01, 6:49 am)

vinniram wrote:

honestly, screw the bureacracy. The Okinawan people have the ultimate right to their ANCESTRAL home, and a few bureacratic bungles aren't gonna change that deep connection. The Okinawan people are constantly protesting against the theft of their land by the US military, so this issue of the land theft is not going to be swept under the carpet, which is 2BAD for Washington and Tokyo.

and out of interest, what do you mean by "populist politican"? if by that you mean a politician who shares the views of the majority of the people, isn't that what all politicians are supposed to be?

Oh I just love that idea.  "Ancestral home"

It means that I have a right to a plot of land somewhere in Africa, for sure.  You, too.  And anyone reading this.  Let's go, eh?  I mean, it's our ancestral home, so it's ours.  It's our right, by God.

Oh?  You say you have some arbitrary time limit, prior to which the concept of ancestral home no longer applies?  I thought so.

Do you know the ratio of pure Okinawans to Japanese on Okinawa, and what the word democracy means?

"Ancestral home" is a ridiculous idea guaranteed to ensure that war among human beings never disappears from planet Earth.

Oh, and about politicians ...

No, actually, they are supposed to be statesmen or stateswomen, and to follow their own consciences -- at least in representative democracies (differentiated from direct democracies).  I realize that this is a rather tired idea in this day of professional politicians, but that was the original intent and idea.  No, in other words, a politician is not supposed to be merely a weather vane.

Last edited by Wally (2009 June 01, 7:24 am)

Wally wrote:

ghinzdra wrote:

japan is also a top contributor to star wars project and many other high tech military project.
most people are totally oblivious to this fact  but budget speaking  japan is the 2nd biggest military force on the planet , and as usa is a league of its own ,  you could even say the first  . Not bad for a so called pacifist country..... which has spent the last 20 years to narrow down the extent of the "no war/no army"  constitution article .

Oh and btw an aircraft carrier  .... carries aircraft!
it's "slightly" quicker than 30mph and when you know the distance between china , corea and japan  I think it's quick enough even for the war of the future..... and I won't even mention submarine , natural part of an operational task force , and their balistic missile....

An aircraft carriers' flank speed is about 35 knots (roughly 40 mph), and when it's holed and on the bottom of the ocean (speed = zero at that point) then its pilots face the same problem the Japanese pilots at Midway faced.

Modern carrier task forces have layers of defense of course.  They are not sitting ducks.  But the central problem is that the "man in the middle" can only do about 35 knots (think Shaquille O'Neil with a load of Cheney buckshot in his legs), and the offensive weapons coming in are doing mach X.  I realize the US Navy puts a lot of emphasis on carrier task forces, and this was wonderful, once upon a time.  When they lose 4 or 5 carriers in one day (as they eventually will) they won't put all their eggs in such a delicate (and horribly expensive) basket.

Admirals, as well as generals, always fight the previous war.

that's why the new generation carrier developped by japan are build on a "small is beautiful " philosophy ... it's still damn expensive for you or me  .... but compared to what cost a traditionnal carrier it is said to be peanuts . That's why they need harrier : because the lenght of the strip is really a joke . Actually officially it's not even  developped as carrier , you have some building on the deck  but it  has been established by expert it can be removed easily  . I don't have enough data , I'll ask to someone knowledgeable on the subject and have an answer by next week .

So here's my point : with this mini carrier generation they can have the advantage (an operational task force with a carrier for aircrafts )  without the drawback (you lose a fortune every time one of them is sunk ... which means every 10 minutes)

on a side note I had also another point.... the very minute the japan goes berserk and discard those BS about no war/no army   we'll get our ass kicked   in old time ways.....

Last edited by ghinzdra (2009 June 01, 11:59 am)

plumage wrote:

Back to masa on the last page, since I've missed a lot....

Much of your argument hinges on Hirohito being a hand-wringing bystander. That is highly debatable. Since you are willing to use Wiki as a resource, check out Hirohito's page, which has many instances of him taking an increasingly active role, and ends with a lot of historians (including Japanese) who go back and forth arguing in their books over how much he was involved. I don't believe the guy was an autocrat, but please, he wasn't an innocent bystander.

As for whether saying anything about the bomb to a modern Japanese would have me viewed as an utter racist--that's why I probably wouldn't. Such a judgment on their part would be highly emotional and irrational, but people often think in those terms. Nothing I said could be construed as anti-Japanese. Perhaps it's coldly rational, but in retrospect I'd rather the bombs gone off earlier, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost in firebombings in other cities, and countless military lives on all sides, spared due to an earlier end to the war. If wanting tons more Japanese (and German) lives spared makes me a bigot who hates those very same Japanese (and/or Germans), then count me such a bigot.

Exactly how much influence did Hirohito had? Nobody knows. But if you are actually familiar with the topic, you KNOW that it was mostly the prime ministers and the cabinet members that made almost all the decisions related to the war. If you didn't look that up after reading my last post, it seems to be a pretty sly trick to say "The emperor should have done this" so Japan looks like a country that was ruled by a strong dictator and the decisions could be done instantly on his whim.

If you believe that thinking nukes were inhumane is irrational, now that's your opinion. But did your notion of "Japan wanted half the world", "Ask Filipinos about the nukes (They would think it was good)" have any rationale? And why are you so sure that nukes saved millions of lives? Nobody in Japanese administration said they surrendered because of the nukes. After all Japan incurred several times more damage to civilians from normal bombing than from the nukes.

What they did feared was though, Russian's declaration of the war against Japan. At the last stage of the war, Japan was desperately seeking the way to start the peace negotiation through Russia with which it had a neutrality pact. This was the only way Japan could make a peace deal short of the unconditional surrender. This diplomatic action ended in vain. Russia abandoned neutrality pact on 8/9 and started to invade Japan. That day, the final conference with emperor and the cabinet was mustered, and it was decided to accept the unconditional surrender the next day.

Now while you can argue the nukes still had some influence, do you think Russian's rapes and massacre and concentration camps are the "right thing to do" because it saved millions of lives? I repeat "for the 3rd time", that I am NOT rebuking the use of the nukes itself. I am just saying that there were better ways of doing it if more concerns on civilians were made, and that an inhumanity is an inhumanity regardless of whatever pretext you try to justify it with.

P.S.
I don't consider Wiki as a reliable source, but that citation is a citation of a book itself so you can check it if you are interested.

Last edited by masaman (2009 June 01, 4:14 pm)

kazelee wrote:

@masaman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

The same way the people in their white coats could have chosen not to develop "the bomb," Japan, at that time, could have chosen to lay down arms.  Japan chose not to. What happened afterward, is the fault of every person involved including but not limited to Japan. I don't know how to say it any softer.

Choice were made. None of the choices made were good ones.

Arguing the humanity of it all, considering all the f#$@ed shit done by all sides, is pointless.

Yea, and I was not attacking an illusion. I was making the case against Plumage saying "it was the right thing to do","I would do the same." and "ask Philippinos about it."
I'm not saying US was evil or anything. As I said 4 times, I'm not even saying US shouldn't have dropped the nukes. I was merely saying that was not the best way of doing things, and nukes are inhumane. That's it.

Last edited by masaman (2009 June 01, 4:24 pm)

masaman wrote:

I think it is best that Japanese force protect Japanese land(duh), but I know that would take time and is a highly political issue, and I don't like politics so I refrain from going into that one.

But it's not politics, it's military strategy.  In this case, the strategy is to deter an outbreak of hostilities.

Nuclear powers with the ability to annihilate each other have to think very, very carefully before they get into direct hot conflict with each other.  So far, in fact, this has been completely avoided (we will see how it goes on the subcontinent), because everyone knows it could quickly spiral out of hand, and what the consequences of that could be.

Japan defending the Senkakus against China, with no US around, becomes problematic for Japan, because China can use real bullets to enforce its will without having to worry about the consequences referred to above.  With the US there, China has to think about how such actions might develop into the unthinkable.

If you want Japan to defend its own territory 100 percent, obviously Japan needs a nuclear deterrent.

Wally wrote:

I hope nuclear weapons are never used.  I regret that a situation ever developed in which their use was regarded as prudent.  But once a war starts -- once somebody decides to use armed force against somebody else -- morality is the first casualty, and it always will be, on both sides.

Thank you. I think this is very fair. I hope US dropped the first one on less populated area, even the second and the third were on the cities, and treated the survivors with a little more respect and humanity instead of as "samples", so I could back it up whole heartedly, but that's past, and it was a war.

Wally wrote:

Japan defending the Senkakus against China, with no US around, becomes problematic for Japan, because China can use real bullets to enforce its will without having to worry about the consequences referred to above.  With the US there, China has to think about how such actions might develop into the unthinkable.

If you want Japan to defend its own territory 100 percent, obviously Japan needs a nuclear deterrent.

I agree. Japan can't defend itself with China aiming 24 missiles with nuclear warheads at every single major city in Japan, and getting into the nuclear power is a touchy issue. That's why I think it'll take time, tens of years, for the change to happen. A lot of Japanese people are pretty naive when it comes to military issues, and some of them are like "War is bad, military is bad, American go home!" so it'll be a long way. I hope you are not a victim of these people.

Last edited by masaman (2009 June 01, 8:17 pm)

OK, enough serious crap.
Do you like First Kitchen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDNtzMUy4vs

Last edited by bodhisamaya (2009 June 01, 10:21 pm)

Masa, I don't disagree with everything you're saying. I know in one more recent post I tried to word it carefully so I wouldn't say I was "glad" about nukes, but the common way to say what I meant is to use that phrase, so I may have used that word in earlier posts. Who can be *glad* at nukes, even in a war? I think I've said that war is always evil. I stand by that. However, if I knew all my family where going to die either all at once in a terrible nuke explosion, or more slowly through firebombing, I'd prefer the nuke option, personally. Everyone can choose for themselves. If a military has as its strategy to destroy tens of thousands of civilians, I'd rather most of it be quick (yes, I know not everyone dies and many suffer for some time before dying, but that's true in conventional bombings as well--I'm not going to judge between full-body radiation burning and sickness on the one hand and full-body fire burning on the other).

I don't *know* that country X would have surrendered upon being nuked. We'll never know. I think it highly probable. That's an opinion you can take or leave. Large portions of our country would surrender to terrorists' demands if they nuked us. Not sure our gov't would. Actually, with Obama, we just might, but that's another argument for another day.

I don't *know* that persons A would've been glad (and in that case, I do use the word to describe that they might have actually been glad). I think it is human nature that some people (at least) in countries ravaged by Japan would have been glad. Again, we'll never know, but I'll point to after 9/11 where there were some folks in predominantly muslim areas who were very glad about that. Likewise, there are Americans who are genuinely glad we nuked. I'm not one of them. It's easy to put people in categories A or B but I'm somewhere in the AB category. Necessary in war at the time, but killing civilians is never a good thing. Ever. Can I be more clear about that?

You agree that we don't know how much Hirohito contributed. Good--I may be too far in thinking he was quite involved, but you also admit that you don't know (as I don't know other things for sure) that he was *just* a figurehead, a puppet, or a statue representing something of historical value. I'm not willing to wrestle on that mat, because it's a field where people far more involved honestly disagree. And how can anyone be sure about the inner machinations of governments? We can't, so people make assumptions, as people make assumptions about the Bush administration during its war, even filling in blanks where information is scarce or unknown. I do agree that it seems pretty clear, or at least uncontroversial, that Hirohito had less involvement during the build up and early portions, but increasing involvement as time went on. How much "less" and how much "more" is beyond this thread. I am biased towards the view that governments are always more informed/involved/active than they let on, than is on official record. That informs my opinion of Hirohito.

It's a subject you're close to, so you've read literally sentences I thought carried clearly implicit meanings, such as that I cannot *know* the motives or probable outcomes of historical scenarios. Hopefully I've cleared those up.

vinniram wrote:

Wally wrote:

Oh I just love that idea.  "Ancestral home"

It means that I have a right to a plot of land somewhere in Africa, for sure.  You, too.  And anyone reading this.  Let's go, eh?  I mean, it's our ancestral home, so it's ours.  It's our right, by God.

so you take a statement I said, twist it to fit another, obviously ludicrous context, and use THAT context to criticize that which I originally said? if you're saying the Okinawan people don't have a right to the island of Okinawa, I honestly think you're crazy. They've been living there for thousands of years, and they STILL LIVE THERE, and if you think the US military has a right to just take land from them, I think that's a US imperialist viewpoint. For God's sake, Okinawa is a tiny island, and yet you still say that the people don't have a right to it. sorry, but most normal people would say that the Okinawans do indeed have a right to their tiny island of Okinawa.

And I don't like that idea of politicians holding views contrary to the majority of citizens. After all, don't citizens vote for politicians whose policies they consider beneficial? Normally, when rulers do what they want against the wishes of the majority of citizens, that's called dictatorship.

And I think you are crazy, too.  "Ancestral home" is a non-starter.  It leads to conflict, because it has no start date, and none is possible.  You claim that Okinawans have been living in the Ryukus for thousands of years.  But actually, you don't have the slightest clue about that, nor do you have the slightest clue about who they (almost surely) kicked out when they arrived from wherever they did.  What about *those* people?  They don't count?  You think the Okinawans were first out of Africa, and got to the Ryukyus before anyone else?  How naive that would be.

Basically, you don't have a clue, and reading your drivel makes that obvious.  You just want to latch on to some warm and fuzzy sounding idea about "ancestral home", and you obviously haven't given that concept very much of a thought.

What do you feel about Israel?  After all, that's all they want:  their "ancestral home".  Screw the Palestinians, right?  I mean, the Palestinians are interlopers, aren't they?  After all, they just arrived 10 centuries or so ago, and it *IS* the Jewish ancestral home.

No?  That's different?

I thought so.

You have no coherent argument here.  Get one, and get back to us.

And it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the US versus Okinawans.  This is a US/Japan issue.  Get a clue, will you?

It is JAPAN that has decided the current status quo.  Complain to them.

And as for the concept of representative democracy, something you are obviously unfamiliar with:  politicians are not supposed to take a popularity poll before deciding about every issue that comes before them.  They are elected to use their best judgment, which means sometimes taking immediately unpopular decisions.  In theory, they should have time and be able to explain those decisions to the people that elected them.  If they cannot prevail of course, they will not be re-elected.  Your idea ELIMINATES the need for politicians completely.  We can all be wired up for IMMEDIATE decision making by the crowd.  Government can consult you on a daily basis about every issue that comes before it.  Sound good?  Sound efficient?  Get a clue, will ya?

Last edited by Wally (2009 June 02, 5:53 am)

masaman wrote:

Plumage,

Earlier, I said I know people like you. But you seem to be willing to listen a lot more than I thought you would. I apologize and take that word back. And even though I said that you would look like a racist (and I think it is still true) I know you are not one. I can see that you have a pretty balanced opinion as a citizen of US where some people are actually "proud" of nukes and more people consider 9/11 as second Pearl Harbor.

But do these people who consider 9/11 as Pearl Harbor "know" that Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo? that there were intense diplomatic efforts from Japanese side to lift it? that Roosevelt knew exactly what Japanese diplomats would say and how much they would compromise through espionage? that he quit the negotiation by sending Japan what is called Hull Note which made an Indian jurist at Tokyo trial say "the Principality of Monaco, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note"? And finally that the first shot at Pearl Harbor was from US battle ship which sunk a Japanese submarine 40 minutes before the Japanese air strike?

I don't think so. And if they knew, I think their "literal" wordings about Pearl Harbor might have been a little different.

Likewise, many US people who believe that nukes ended the war don't know that most decisions in Imperial Japan were made by the prime ministers and cabinet members who were lawmakers elected by Japanese citizens. They also don't know that the prime minister had changed several times through the course of the war, and the last prime minister was a kind of person who expressed his condolence on the death of President Roosevelt. And of course, asking an average American to know it was the Japanese army that strongly opposed surrender and only compromised after the Russian's invasion is far fetched.

You can say that the Emperor could surrender anytime on his own decision, and yes he could. But if you know all these back grounds (not just my words but the actual history), you might find such an act something only ended up with a coup d'etat by the army. And the army had never faltered by the nukes as they still kept a lot of power in Manchuria.

Now, I'm not trying to change your, or anyone's, opinion, but I wanted to provide some food for thought. I hope I did an OK job.

Some of this is worthy, some of it is not.

A bit that surely is not worthy is the attempt to put the "first shot" blame on the US.  This is very, very pathetic, almost sick.

Japan sent an ARMADA to Hawaii.  Its intent was clear.  That the US *may* have fired first on a Japanese submarine that was *way* out of its normal patrolling area, and which certainly menaced the battleship that fired on it, is way, way, way beyond the point.  Japan had picked up the gun, and intended to use it, because the US was going to refuse to sell it oil.  (Oh dear!)  And one might understand (even if you don't) that in those days before satellite communication, the Japanese navy was "over the horizon", and could not be called back -- IT WAS GOING TO ATTACK, no matter what.

When you pick up the gun first, you are responsible.  ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT responsible, even if the other side sees you coming and decides that it needs to defend itself.  JAPAN started the hostilities, and any attempt to paper this over is revisionist claptrap.  Take it back or endure nothing but ridicule from me and others.  It's up to you.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE.  Japan was coming to kill, and they were the first out of the gate with that intention.

Nothing the US did threatened Japan's national survival.  Yes, perhaps it threatened Japan's extra-territorial survival, but so what.  Japan had zero right to any of China, even a sliver of it.

If Japan was "tricked" into starting the war, then it was a simpleton nation that shouldn't have been playing over its head in the first place.  Once again, pick up the gun, and you are guilty.

So your story, while somewhat interesting, is largely revisionist BS.

Japan reached for the gun.  Japan decided to kill, to defend the killing that it was already engaged in.  Japan is guilty.  Period.  Japan overplayed its hand, and Japan decided that murder would solve its "problems", problems that only Japan envisioned that it had.  Japan is GUILTY.  Period.

Capice?

Last edited by Wally (2009 June 03, 11:06 pm)

In short:  "You tricked me into picking up my gun and shooting at you" is about at pathetic an excuse as "You tried to win too hard, and so you are guilty of inhumanity".

We are talking "load of crapola" here.