NationStates

SovietKitties wrote:Lol you really believe a piece of paper is going to stop them being aggressive. Don't get me wrong, I think we should leave. I fully believe they won't start another war unless provoked. But, it's a piece of paper. The only authority it has is what people enforce and that's up to the government.

Japan still has an aggressive, nationalist strain in its politics that is growing steadily. This is exactly the same craziness that led to the Pacific war in WWII. They truly believe they are meant to dominate the Pacific, that their emperor has a divine right to slaughter the Chinese, and so on.

That said, the US presence is mutually beneficial to both countries and most Japanese recognize it. Okinawans get angry because it's in their backyard and American soldiers - regardless of the actual number of crimes committed - tend to be loud dickheads when they're here, do not respect local custom, and proudly declare their superiority to the Japanese in public places. In short, they advertise themselves as untouchable and unquestionably dominant, and that's bound to piss off the locals. I've seen it firsthand - I live in Taiwan (said I'd emigrate if Bush II won reelection, and actually did it), have a number of Japanese friends, and have made trips to Okinawa, a close and comfortable vacation spot.

Every single time I have encountered American soldiers in the Pacific, I have been completely ashamed of my country and the behavior of it's servicemen. I never come into contact with them without hearing (and I'm dead serious here) loud yelling about 1) Asian's penis size, 2) degrading local women, 3) the bidet function on Japanese public toilets, or 4) the superiority of McDonalds to sushi.

I understand they're mostly kids, mostly uneducated and uncultured, and reacting in some way to psychological alienation and homesickness... most of the soldiers I've met are pretty nice guys when they're at home... but, hell, you'd think someone could drill some respect into them for when they're overseas too.

If they want them gone, close them down. Although the Japanese shouldn't expect a timely response should they ever face aggression...

Wait a minute!

Increasing American isolationism? Economic and political instability in Europe? A rising global power in Asia? A strongman takes power in Russia after a disappointing end to an era of radical political change?

I've seen this all before somewhere...

NERVUN wrote:

Arpeji wrote:Stopping extra territorial rights , I think , will solve many things. Say allow the local arrests and tries the offending soldier, or at least public military trial by the US there.
The locals are scared since US soldiers can basically "attack" them without repercussion.

That's not true. SOFA allows the US to maintain custody of US troops until charges are filed. This can cause problems with Japanese investigations (Which in turn is another issue given Japanese police powers). However, in event of serious crimes, the US can wave this and hand people over.

Could you explain what issue happens with Japanese police powers? I think SOFA as territorial rights. Main problem, as far as I understand, is that Japanese Police needs to hand over based on SOFA rather than allowing local arrest or you can say it as arrest plus custody. Arrest without custody is almost useless and detrimental in investigation, especially when that offending soldier is transferred back to US, which happened too often in the past. Hence I suggest at least public military trial (and investigation) for every case (not for high profile only). Correct me if I am wrong.

Japan seems fine with it.
If the US wishes to pull out, i'd recommend they take the deal that the UK turned down when we left The Emirates.
(The UK was like ugh, 2 much moneys needed to do this, bye. The Emirates offered to pay for the soldiers salaries, training and equipment, we declined and gtfo. If japan makes that offer, the US should take it.)

Arpeji wrote:

NERVUN wrote:That's not true. SOFA allows the US to maintain custody of US troops until charges are filed. This can cause problems with Japanese investigations (Which in turn is another issue given Japanese police powers). However, in event of serious crimes, the US can wave this and hand people over.

Could you explain what issue happens with Japanese police powers? I think SOFA as territorial rights. Main problem, as far as I understand, is that Japanese Police needs to hand over based on SOFA rather than allowing local arrest or you can say it as arrest plus custody. Arrest without custody is almost useless and detrimental in investigation, especially when that offending soldier is transferred back to US, which happened too often in the past. Hence I suggest at least public military trial (and investigation) for every case (not for high profile only). Correct me if I am wrong.

In Japan, police can detain you for 72 hours prior to any charges being filed. They can extend to 20 days if they request it of a judge (Which is almost always granted). During the time of your detainment, police can question you non-stop at any time, day or night, and can do so without your lawyer present (Lawyers are involved only when they actually charge you with something) and mostly un-video tapped as well.

Pretty much police in Japan have one month to wring a confession out of you. They're very good at doing so, most of the time they get one, thus 98% conviction rate. Needless to say, this makes the US slightly nervous in terms of its troops (Its citizens are another matter, the embassy couldn't care less). It's why one should NOT get arrested in Japan.

Now, mind you, this isn't to say that US troops don't take advantage of SOFA either. From how I understand it, troops are not supposed to be rotated anywhere until after they have been cleared. However, certain individuals will kinda 'forget' to tell their SO that they're under investigation.

The other problem being that if Japanese police do not bring charges due to the victim declining to press them, or evidence being unclear (The DA in Japan tend to be very conservative, they normally do not bring charges unless they're well satisfied that they'll win, it's why they like confessions too), the US won't hand them over either.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Japan seems fine with it.
If the US wishes to pull out, i'd recommend they take the deal that the UK turned down when we left The Emirates.
(The UK was like ugh, 2 much moneys needed to do this, bye. The Emirates offered to pay for the soldiers salaries, training and equipment, we declined and gtfo. If japan makes that offer, the US should take it.)

Doing so, the US is attempting to stick Japan with the bill to move the bulk of the Marines to Guam.

NERVUN wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Japan seems fine with it.
If the US wishes to pull out, i'd recommend they take the deal that the UK turned down when we left The Emirates.
(The UK was like ugh, 2 much moneys needed to do this, bye. The Emirates offered to pay for the soldiers salaries, training and equipment, we declined and gtfo. If japan makes that offer, the US should take it.)

Doing so, the US is attempting to stick Japan with the bill to move the bulk of the Marines to Guam.

As a resident, would you support that?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

NERVUN wrote:

Doing so, the US is attempting to stick Japan with the bill to move the bulk of the Marines to Guam.

As a resident, would you support that?

Nope. If Japan wants the troops gone, they should go. However, if the US is going to move them, Japan shouldn't be stuck with the bill. I'm also not thrilled that the US is making Japan pay for the bases either.

I'm good with maintaining the troops.

They could be used a fast response force and making sure what happened does not happen again.

Are you familiar with the Korean War, when the US troops in Japan were quickly mobilized to support the US Eight Army in South Korea. I think that it is a good move to maintain the troops there to make sure that communism doesn't spread again.

NERVUN wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:

As a resident, would you support that?

Nope. If Japan wants the troops gone, they should go. However, if the US is going to move them, Japan shouldn't be stuck with the bill. I'm also not thrilled that the US is making Japan pay for the bases either.

I agree that if Japan wants them gone they should go.
But if they don't want them gone, and want them to stay, should they be expected to pay at least some of the bill? I think they should.
I also agree expecting Japan to pay for the movement of US troops to OUTSIDE Japan is unfair.

I personally believe that we should take our presence out of Okinawa, and let the Japanese protect it. We should withdraw all forces from Okinawa and a good portion of them out of Japan, but not all. We should also keep Military bases at both these locations handy, in case we ever had to come back. Although Japan's constitution does not let them have a powerful arm, I'm sure they can continue the loophole and build a navy fleet and army large enough to protect itself from an attack from any nation. The United States can easily sell these military supplies are cheaply as possible without losing profit. Win-win. Tons of equipment and supplies bought from the United States, less spending in the Military because there's less troops overseas, and out comes a powerful Japan.

We should only leave on the condition though, that Okinawa and Japan have their stable militaries, and instead of bringing our troops all the way back home, we should leave a good amount of troops in Hawaii (I know it's militarized, but we should militarize it more. It's an American state that's very close to Japan, Okinawa, and North Korea relative to the continental U.S. Also, we should also have airfields on the Mariana Islands.

Edit: Hey, is there anyway to change "Political Communist" from my icon? Not even close to a communist.

NERVUN wrote:

Arpeji wrote:
Could you explain what issue happens with Japanese police powers? I think SOFA as territorial rights. Main problem, as far as I understand, is that Japanese Police needs to hand over based on SOFA rather than allowing local arrest or you can say it as arrest plus custody. Arrest without custody is almost useless and detrimental in investigation, especially when that offending soldier is transferred back to US, which happened too often in the past. Hence I suggest at least public military trial (and investigation) for every case (not for high profile only). Correct me if I am wrong.

In Japan, police can detain you for 72 hours prior to any charges being filed. They can extend to 20 days if they request it of a judge (Which is almost always granted). During the time of your detainment, police can question you non-stop at any time, day or night, and can do so without your lawyer present (Lawyers are involved only when they actually charge you with something) and mostly un-video tapped as well.

Pretty much police in Japan have one month to wring a confession out of you. They're very good at doing so, most of the time they get one, thus 98% conviction rate. Needless to say, this makes the US slightly nervous in terms of its troops (Its citizens are another matter, the embassy couldn't care less). It's why one should NOT get arrested in Japan.
.

You forgot the part where when the police are not talking to you, your in solitary confinement and you have no idea how long you've been there.
Ive read people who have come out of there without confessing thought they had been there for months.

greed and death wrote:

New England and The Maritimes wrote:Is there really no possible way to get more babies in Japan?

Get the men to start helping with the kids and the house, get the employer to stop forcing the men to go out drinking every night, all and all get rid of the sexism rampant in Japan.

The sexism isn't the problem. Fact of the matter is the second that women can have careers, birthrates take a dive. Now a days its about money. The women who stay at home have more children then those who don't. In Japan, right now its about women choosing between having a family or having a career. Many choose career.

NERVUN wrote:

The Old South wrote:
I thought amending it was implied, but anywho, the demographics issue in Japan is so dire that they can't provide volunteers for self-defense? Must be funny to have 127 million people but not enough youth to serve. Water, water everywhere...

There are more people over 60 than under 15 in Japan. Currently the number of children born per woman is less than one, far under just replacement (Which is 2.2). Pretty much by the next century, Japan will have halved its population.

As the economy drops and Japanese standard of living goes down, the population will probably rise again. To be honest, I think its just cyclical.

Education and standard of living have a lot to do with birthrates.

Florinia wrote:I'm good with maintaining the troops.

They could be used a fast response force and making sure what happened does not happen again.

Are you familiar with the Korean War, when the US troops in Japan were quickly mobilized to support the US Eight Army in South Korea. I think that it is a good move to maintain the troops there to make sure that communism doesn't spread again.

The Far East has cooled down to the point where any conflict in the near future is unlikely. The North Koreans only posed a threat when they had Russia and China actively on their side. Now, I doubt North Korea could take on even South Korea alone. Also, neither North Korea nor China are communist. North Korea officially has a Juche system, while China has a laissez-faire economy (though their political and social policies have communist origins and leanings).

NERVUN wrote:Nope. If Japan wants the troops gone, they should go. However, if the US is going to move them, Japan shouldn't be stuck with the bill. I'm also not thrilled that the US is making Japan pay for the bases either.

I can bend it around in my mind that the Japanese would have to pay for continued US military presence within their borders if I try really hard and convince myself that US military protection is a commodity to be bought and sold. Having the Japanese pay for the US to uproot and leave, not so much.

Ralkovia wrote:

greed and death wrote:
Get the men to start helping with the kids and the house, get the employer to stop forcing the men to go out drinking every night, all and all get rid of the sexism rampant in Japan.

The sexism isn't the problem. Fact of the matter is the second that women can have careers, birthrates take a dive. Now a days its about money. The women who stay at home have more children then those who don't. In Japan, right now its about women choosing between having a family or having a career. Many choose career.

Because keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a worthwhile goal and women shouldn't bother to have any aspirations beyond being a good wife and wise mother, amiright?

NERVUN wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
The sexism isn't the problem. Fact of the matter is the second that women can have careers, birthrates take a dive. Now a days its about money. The women who stay at home have more children then those who don't. In Japan, right now its about women choosing between having a family or having a career. Many choose career.

Because keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a worthwhile goal and women shouldn't bother to have any aspirations beyond being a good wife and wise mother, amiright?

It certainly worked for i don't know up until what a century or two ago?

Don't say i agree with it i just understand why the mindset persists.

maintain

when you liberals cant get new technology because all the asians are dead, dont come crying to me

Sardine World wrote:maintain

when you liberals cant get new technology because all the asians are dead, dont come crying to me

I agree completely by the way but the way you worded it was certainly entertaining.

Pretty sure those sources support tougher discipline for US forces based overseas and in the case of countries like Japan and Western Europe, allow those countries to try those who commit crimes. As for staying, well I really don't care that much one way or the other, but if I recall correctly (Can't remember where I read it) Japan's economy is much stronger for having the US presence

Indira wrote:Pretty sure those sources support tougher discipline for US forces based overseas and in the case of countries like Japan and Western Europe, allow those countries to try those who commit crimes. As for staying, well I really don't care that much one way or the other, but if I recall correctly (Can't remember where I read it) Japan's economy is much stronger for having the US presence

Military bases are pretty good for economies tis true; Lots of personal to blow money on local stuff after all and you just need to leave base to find relaxation.

The Zeonic States wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Because keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a worthwhile goal and women shouldn't bother to have any aspirations beyond being a good wife and wise mother, amiright?

It certainly worked for i don't know up until what a century or two ago?

Don't say i agree with it i just understand why the mindset persists.

The ironic thing is, it's been noted that Japan, still struggling with a weak economy, could boost its GDP by 20% if they would allow women to continue to work.

The United States should withdraw their forces from Japan. Japan isn't their responsibility and the United States should stop being interventionist.

The Land of Pennywise the Dancing Clown wrote:The United States should withdraw their forces from Japan. Japan isn't their responsibility and the United States should stop being interventionist.

yes because we all know that a country thats 50x the size of japan and is power hungry, and isnt very far WONT destroy them

Sardine World wrote:

The Land of Pennywise the Dancing Clown wrote:The United States should withdraw their forces from Japan. Japan isn't their responsibility and the United States should stop being interventionist.

yes because we all know that a country thats 50x the size of japan and is power hungry, and isnt very far WONT destroy them

It won't.