Okinawa opposes US bases again - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15006546
In accordance with the Japanese-American Security Treaty of September 8, 1951, the United States can deploy its military bases throughout Japan. This treaty prohibits Japan from entering into any agreements of a military nature with third powers without prior US consent. And, despite the fact that Japan today is one of the economic giants of the world, it is completely dependent on the States. Mainly due to the fact that according to the agreement, the United States provides Japan with security from the potential threat from countries with which it has territorial disputes (Senkaku Islands - with China, Dokdo Island - with South Korea, the Kuril Islands - with Russia and the Spratly Islands, contested by the six states - Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei).

Okinawa Island was the first place where the US military bases were located, and at the moment there are more than 70% of all US military facilities in Japan. They are not under Japanese jurisdiction. And this, of course, allows American servicemen to feel completely free in all their actions and creates a number of problems for local residents: permanent accidents caused by the US military in a state of alcohol and drug intoxication, violent acts on women, murder, robbery, etc.

The US military in Japan is boldly enjoying the benefits of "extraterritoriality", and the Japanese government headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cannot do anything about it. Although even if it could, it hardly went into bold measures, as indeed the previous premieres, because of their weak character and fear of losing the location of Washington, which is so important to official Tokyo, that he is ready to spit on the people of Okinawa. Locals regularly hold rallies aimed at reducing or completely eliminating the US military contingent from Japan.

For example, according to The Japan Times, on May 17, 2019, the "Peace March" was held in Okinawa against the presence of US military bases in Japan. At this time on the island of Okinawa celebrate the 47th anniversary of the return of the island of Japan from the control of the United States. During the celebration, a three-day "Peace March" also takes place, the participants of which call for a reduction in the US military presence in Japan. It was also noted that the United States plans to relocate the Futemma Marine Corps base to another location on the island, but protesters are demanding that the base be moved outside of Okinawa.

Thus, it is obvious that, despite regular rallies and appeals of Japanese people to reduce the US military contingent in Japan, the official Tokyo has no plans to listen to its people, afraid of losing the position of Washington. It is clear that the Japanese government did not care about its people for the sake of their own benefits from the United States, who promise Japan the protection of the country and the return of the Kuril Islands. But as the saying goes: "promise does not mean not to fulfill".
#15006563
You'll get similar situations and problems develop in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe too, when American bases pop up to encircle Russia, just as in Okinawa. My father was stationed there once and the stories he would tell...

US Troops belong in the US, defending genuine US interests and nobody else's.
#15006572
annatar1914 wrote:You'll get similar situations and problems develop in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe too, when American bases pop up to encircle Russia, just as in Okinawa. My father was stationed there once and the stories he would tell...

US Troops belong in the US, defending genuine US interests and nobody else's.


Poland built the US bases itself paying 2 billion for the construction. In your dreams annatar :lol:
#15006584
JohnRawls wrote:Poland built the US bases itself paying 2 billion for the construction. In your dreams annatar :lol:


Oh, Poland will definitely pay for those bases. Welcome to the Occupation, the New World Order Imperium, where the Poland you know will no longer exist and be replaced by an America-on-the-Vistula. They will never willingly leave, ever, your new overlords. And your children will be theirs.
#15006643
annatar1914 wrote:Oh, Poland will definitely pay for those bases. Welcome to the Occupation, the New World Order Imperium, where the Poland you know will no longer exist and be replaced by an America-on-the-Vistula. They will never willingly leave, ever, your new overlords. And your children will be theirs.

Tell that to the US Navy in Subic Bay...oh, wait. They left. How about the US Air Force at Clark AFB. Oh, wait... they left too. How about all those US troops in France? Oh... yea... they left too. Remember the 100k+ US forces in Iraq? Oh...they went home. When ISIS took over Western Iraq, it seems that Iraqi politicians with a disdain for the US decided that maybe American troops weren't so bad after all. Remember all the US forces in Saudi Arabia? Khobar? Dhahran? Where are they now? The US leaves when asked. The fact of the matter is that a lot of countries like the security and the economic stimulus. That's why most NATO powers have insignificant militaries--relying instead on the US.
#15006658
Red_Army wrote:Subic bay is a hilarious example. It only lasted for 100 years and the US still has a military presence in the Philippines :lol:

The US will leave if asked. That is the point, and it should be acknowledged. The reality is that the government of the Philippines wanted rent of $825M a year back in the late 1980s and early 1990s for Subic Bay. The US was willing to pay $360M a year. It was a process that went badly for the Philippines and the local economy. November 1992 was the first time that the Philippines didn't have a foreign military presence since the 1500s. The reason the US has a military presence there now is at the request of the Philippines. Obviously, the US leaving was a financial blow for them, made worse by the devastation of Mt. Pinatubo the prior year. We established a visiting forces agreement in 1999 (Bill Clinton) and were told we could use Subic Bay again in 2012 (Barack Obama).

What are the Philippines going to do about China claiming the Spratlys within spitting distance of the Philippine coast and their exclusive economic zone? They told the US to fuck off. So we fucked off as requested. It's not like they can defend themselves against an aggressive China. So they saw the light. What can we say?
#15006684
American troops are back to Manila in 2018 based on an agreement known as the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that allows the building of U.S. military facilities inside Philippine military bases. The U.S. bases are meant to enhance the ability of the Philippine military to defend the county from external threats (i.e. China). The Spratlys are being taken over by China and the Senkakus would be the next target.

On April 17, a groundbreaking ceremony was held for the building of a U.S. military facility at a Philippine Air Force base in the province of Pampanga, north of Manila.
The building of the facility is part of an agreement signed in 2014 known as the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, or EDCA.
The military deal allows the building of U.S. military facilities inside Philippine military bases. The deal is not a treaty approved by the country's legislators as required by law.
Experts have already questioned the legality of the executive agreement, saying that the approval of foreign bases in the country is the sole prerogative of the Philippine Senate.
Why President Rodrigo Duterte, a staunch critic of the United States and a close friend of China, has allowed the implementation of this agreement is yet to be known.
The ultimate and real purpose of U.S. bases within Philippine bases remains unclear.
The primer explaining the EDCA goes to great lengths to stress that the facilities are to enhance the ability of the Philippine military to defend the county from external threats.
The bases are supposed to promote between the Philippines and its ally the United States interoperability and capacity-building of the Philippine military, maritime security, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response, among others.
https://www.ucanews.com/news/the-us-mil ... ines/82234
#15006720
blackjack21 wrote:Tell that to the US Navy in Subic Bay...oh, wait. They left. How about the US Air Force at Clark AFB. Oh, wait... they left too. How about all those US troops in France? Oh... yea... they left too. Remember the 100k+ US forces in Iraq? Oh...they went home. When ISIS took over Western Iraq, it seems that Iraqi politicians with a disdain for the US decided that maybe American troops weren't so bad after all. Remember all the US forces in Saudi Arabia? Khobar? Dhahran? Where are they now? The US leaves when asked. The fact of the matter is that a lot of countries like the security and the economic stimulus. That's why most NATO powers have insignificant militaries--relying instead on the US.


Our corrupt American Elites, a few anyway, on occassion may whine about our Imperial overextension, but generally they like the cozy arrangement they have with their comprador clients and vassals who rule these foreign lands. It's much like the status of Athens vis-a-vis the Delian League, more than Rome, but it's not too different. No sir, we Americans never fully leave these foreign lands, and the list of bases and countries to place bases in just keeps growing and growing...And we turn them into cultural Americans too.

Did the American people sign up for this drive towards World Hegemon? Or are we now for the most part just too fat and stupid and besotted by the Entertainment/Media wing of the National-Security/Military-Industrial-Healthcare/Finance-Capital Complex to care?
#15006731
annatar1914 wrote:And we turn them into cultural Americans too.

That's somewhat true-ish in Western countries. Saudi Arabia has sky scrapers now, but they execute homosexuals, stone adulterers, and so forth. Most Western countries behaved no better than Saudi Arabia before the scientific and industrial revolutions, but Saudi Arabia's actions are seen as somewhat excessive at this point. Multiculturalism (late 19th and early 20th Century mass migrations) was a fact in the United States before it was adopted as a non-assimilation ideology for the purposes of sowing discord. The United States almost abandoned capitalism as a result. Yet, Europe adopted this process recently and now they face problems like Terminal 2 at Charles De Gaulle getting shut down by illegal immigrants chanting that France does not belong to the French, and the government is remarkably tolerant of such displays but is bemused when the French populace despises the political class.

annatar1914 wrote:Did the American people sign up for this drive towards World Hegemon? Or are we now for the most part just too fat and stupid and besotted by the Entertainment/Media wing of the National-Security/Military-Industrial-Healthcare/Finance-Capital Complex to care?

That's a very interesting question. I think many capitalists and socialists are certainly of that vein, that there must be a single world government, currency, etc. I believe it is the thinking of people who cannot count past the number one. I don't believe that the drive toward hegemony is inexorably tied in with the underlying economic system. A lot of people would have you believe that capitalism must have increasing profits, and therefore must pillage the Earth. What was the reason for communist expansion then? To this day, I still find arguments for communism to be inherently weak, because they always seem to excuse the failures of communist government with the claim that they aren't really communist (the no true Scotsman problem), or that they cannot coexist with capitalist states (the fragility problem), or that virtually every corner of the world must be conquered and every single person on the planet must be communist in order for it to work (the universality problem). Yet, people who claim not to be motivated by profits, capital accumulation, etc. were just as hell bent on global hegemony as the people they excoriated for being self-interested.

One problem with the drive for hegemony is that the people seeking it are their own worst enemies at this point. They cannot seem to articulate a reason for it. They can't claim and expect to be believed, for example, that global warming is a serious problem and still be for outsourcing the West's manufacturing clear to the other side of the planet in a country with few environmental regulations and allow manufacturers to sell products into the West's consumer markets virtually tax (tariffs, imposts, excises) free, while placing the displaced workers on welfare and then claiming you need open borders for illegal aliens to do work at rock bottom wages because they aren't eligible for welfare, etc. It simply strains credulity. Yet, that's exactly the sort of horseshit our establishments are slagging right now, and that's why they are so fantastically unpopular.

Detractors of the US, however, seem to make the argument that Japan does not want US military assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, in Japan, like many other Westernized countries, you can assemble left wingers to protest a US military base. However, Japan would be in a world of hurt if the US cut off military support and erected trade barriers to Japanese goods. Maybe a lot of rank-and-file Japanese people don't understand this, but their establishment certainly does. If the US were to do that, Japan would be right back to the early 20th Century. They would be invading East Timor and Brunei to get their petroleum resources and then going on an East Asia ass kicking spree.
#15006737
@blackjack21, you replied;
That's somewhat true-ish in Western countries. Saudi Arabia has sky scrapers now, but they execute homosexuals, stone adulterers, and so forth. Most Western countries behaved no better than Saudi Arabia before the scientific and industrial revolutions, but Saudi Arabia's actions are seen as somewhat excessive at this point. Multiculturalism (late 19th and early 20th Century mass migrations) was a fact in the United States before it was adopted as a non-assimilation ideology for the purposes of sowing discord. The United States almost abandoned capitalism as a result. Yet, Europe adopted this process recently and now they face problems like Terminal 2 at Charles De Gaulle getting shut down by illegal immigrants chanting that France does not belong to the French, and the government is remarkably tolerant of such displays but is bemused when the French populace despises the political class.


To be quite blunt, I don't expect liberalism in either it's classical or modern 21st century iterations, the American or W. European type political spectrum post-WWII, to exist anywhere for much longer. It'll be Fascists, National Civic Populists and Reactionaries versus Communists versus Islamists for a while.

That's a very interesting question. I think many capitalists and socialists are certainly of that vein, that there must be a single world government, currency, etc. I believe it is the thinking of people who cannot count past the number one. I don't believe that the drive toward hegemony is inexorably tied in with the underlying economic system. A lot of people would have you believe that capitalism must have increasing profits, and therefore must pillage the Earth. What was the reason for communist expansion then? To this day, I still find arguments for communism to be inherently weak, because they always seem to excuse the failures of communist government with the claim that they aren't really communist (the no true Scotsman problem), or that they cannot coexist with capitalist states (the fragility problem), or that virtually every corner of the world must be conquered and every single person on the planet must be communist in order for it to work (the universality problem). Yet, people who claim not to be motivated by profits, capital accumulation, etc. were just as hell bent on global hegemony as the people they excoriated for being self-interested.


I suspect then that the ''Elite'' reasons for Globalism are just as they are themselves, a technocratic screen behind which others call the shots. This is a real political ideology openly in some places like Latin America, ironically enough, called Synarchism.

One problem with the drive for hegemony is that the people seeking it are their own worst enemies at this point. They cannot seem to articulate a reason for it. They can't claim and expect to be believed, for example, that global warming is a serious problem and still be for outsourcing the West's manufacturing clear to the other side of the planet in a country with few environmental regulations and allow manufacturers to sell products into the West's consumer markets virtually tax (tariffs, imposts, excises) free, while placing the displaced workers on welfare and then claiming you need open borders for illegal aliens to do work at rock bottom wages because they aren't eligible for welfare, etc. It simply strains credulity. Yet, that's exactly the sort of horseshit our establishments are slagging right now, and that's why they are so fantastically unpopular.


The Globalists can always change the avowed reasons for Globalism to suit popular unrest, or even jettison Globalism as a thing once they've got all that they can wring out of it. Cut their loses and build their universal dominance around one political regime out there in the world.

Detractors of the US, however, seem to make the argument that Japan does not want US military assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, in Japan, like many other Westernized countries, you can assemble left wingers to protest a US military base. However, Japan would be in a world of hurt if the US cut off military support and erected trade barriers to Japanese goods. Maybe a lot of rank-and-file Japanese people don't understand this, but their establishment certainly does. If the US were to do that, Japan would be right back to the early 20th Century. They would be invading East Timor and Brunei to get their petroleum resources and then going on an East Asia ass kicking spree.


Maybe the problem with the first time they tried that, is that they did not seek the approval of the Anglo-American establishment in the first place, as they had in 1904 initially.
#15006761
annatar1914 wrote:To be quite blunt, I don't expect liberalism in either it's classical or modern 21st century iterations, the American or W. European type political spectrum post-WWII, to exist anywhere for much longer. It'll be Fascists, National Civic Populists and Reactionaries versus Communists versus Islamists for a while.

I don't know that I completely agree with that. My absolutist prognostications are more often wrong than right, so I tend to eschew them. Yet, I think the multicultural globalist establishment certainly has its back up against the wall. They could preserve themselves by relenting as they did during America's Great Depression. For example, the reason Mark Zuckerberg dresses like any other Gen-X/Millennial engineer has its roots in the Great Depression when people of great wealth stopped wearing top hats, frock coats, and being driven in limousines more ostentatious than a Lincoln Town Car. You wouldn't be able to pick Mark Zuckerberg out in a crowd, because he looks just like any other douche bag his age. Yet, he spends $25M a year on his security detail. Beyond advertising dating sites to singles on his Facebook, he has real reasons to believe there are people out there with legitimate grievances to hate his guts. You don't need to spend $25M a year to stop standard kidnap and ransom. Stopping snipers or IED attacks is much more challenging, and expensive. I'll be interested to see what happens in the European elections tomorrow. It should make for some interesting weekend reads. What is very evident, however, is that the globalist establishment has lost favor everywhere, and the infiltration of multiple seemingly opposing parties and the media has lost its pull too.

The New Right Is Beating the New Left. Everywhere.


annatar1914 wrote:I suspect then that the ''Elite'' reasons for Globalism are just as they are themselves, a technocratic screen behind which others call the shots. This is a real political ideology openly in some places like Latin America, ironically enough, called Synarchism.

Yea. I could go with that. The fragile aspect of that philosophy is unlike companies domiciled in totalitarian states, much of the West's companies are domiciled under democracies, and it is more than clear now that corporations are doing their level best to undermine the will of voters. I think the big difference now is that voters know it and understand it in a way they didn't ten years ago.

That's why--love him or hate him--Donald Trump is an historical figure now. Imagine the sheer danger of a politician listening to the desires of the masses! :roll:

annatar1914 wrote:The Globalists can always change the avowed reasons for Globalism to suit popular unrest, or even jettison Globalism as a thing once they've got all that they can wring out of it.

Well, they hit that point around WWII when the empires started collapsing. People from India can certainly appreciate why working class Britons don't want so many of them driving wages down as they certainly didn't appreciate the British ruling class running their country for 100 years either directly or via the British East India Company. Now, they are hitting the reverse of it trying to import Asia and Africa into Europe and South America into North America. The electorate is nauseous of this now.

annatar1914 wrote:Cut their loses and build their universal dominance around one political regime out there in the world.

That's an interesting thought, but I don't think they really want to leave the United States yet. Their biggest trade opportunity is selling China and buying South Asia right now. That transition would give blue collar Americans some breathing room. Maintaining mass illegal immigration is likely to lead to political consequences they don't want to stomach. In my view, Donald Trump is just the beginning of that process. The establishment's push for Joe Biden--a multi-time loser for the White House, just like Hillary Clinton--is their primary hope now.

annatar1914 wrote:Maybe the problem with the first time they tried that, is that they did not seek the approval of the Anglo-American establishment in the first place, as they had in 1904 initially.

I don't know that they can be blamed for betting on Germany as the rising star. That did in fact materialize and exists to this day with a lot of the Anglo-American establishment in the mix there. Both Hitler and Tojo saw the handwriting on the wall for the British Empire, and WWII effectively took the piss out of them. The UK was the ultimate loser of WWII. Although, even India's Independence didn't make that clear. The Suez Crisis is what made them realize they were no longer the top dog--a bitter pill to be sure, but not as bitter as it was for the French.
#15006768
@blackjack21 , you said in response that;

I don't know that I completely agree with that. My absolutist prognostications are more often wrong than right, so I tend to eschew them. Yet, I think the multicultural globalist establishment certainly has its back up against the wall.


All the more so because the Money Power they exemplify is not greater than the Killer Power (as I call it), and in fact never was.


They could preserve themselves by relenting as they did during America's Great Depression. For example, the reason Mark Zuckerberg dresses like any other Gen-X/Millennial engineer has its roots in the Great Depression when people of great wealth stopped wearing top hats, frock coats, and being driven in limousines more ostentatious than a Lincoln Town Car. You wouldn't be able to pick Mark Zuckerberg out in a crowd, because he looks just like any other douche bag his age. Yet, he spends $25M a year on his security detail. Beyond advertising dating sites to singles on his Facebook, he has real reasons to believe there are people out there with legitimate grievances to hate his guts. You don't need to spend $25M a year to stop standard kidnap and ransom. Stopping snipers or IED attacks is much more challenging, and expensive.


As I mentioned, the Killers.



I'll be interested to see what happens in the European elections tomorrow. It should make for some interesting weekend reads. What is very evident, however, is that the globalist establishment has lost favor everywhere, and the infiltration of multiple seemingly opposing parties and the media has lost its pull too.


The Wealthy never seem to learn that bought Influence is not the same as Power



Yea. I could go with that. The fragile aspect of that philosophy is unlike companies domiciled in totalitarian states, much of the West's companies are domiciled under democracies, and it is more than clear now that corporations are doing their level best to undermine the will of voters. I think the big difference now is that voters know it and understand it in a way they didn't ten years ago.

That's why--love him or hate him--Donald Trump is an historical figure now. Imagine the sheer danger of a politician listening to the desires of the masses! :roll:



Look at the late Roman Republic, with the wealthy Aristocratic Optimates and the Plebian Populares, and the murder of every popular leader (except Marius), ending with the Assassination of Julius Caesar. They do quite rightly see a leader with his power resting upon the will of the people and not on constitutional machinery and machinations to drain that power to themselves.

In America, almost every person who has actual power behind them, the power to physically end the lives of the Elites and their mercenary goons, is solidly behind Trump, including the rank-and-file Military and most Officers... And a good deal of the LEO's too.


Well, they hit that point around WWII when the empires started collapsing. People from India can certainly appreciate why working class Britons don't want so many of them driving wages down as they certainly didn't appreciate the British ruling class running their country for 100 years either directly or via the British East India Company. Now, they are hitting the reverse of it trying to import Asia and Africa into Europe and South America into North America. The electorate is nauseous of this now.


To say the least.

That's an interesting thought, but I don't think they really want to leave the United States yet. Their biggest trade opportunity is selling China and buying South Asia right now. That transition would give blue collar Americans some breathing room. Maintaining mass illegal immigration is likely to lead to political consequences they don't want to stomach. In my view, Donald Trump is just the beginning of that process. The establishment's push for Joe Biden--a multi-time loser for the White House, just like Hillary Clinton--is their primary hope now.


I think they've written off 2020, possibly, with genuine candidates unbeholden to foreign powers. They're going to cut their losses and consolidate around a rising power like China, throw behind them. They've got IMO at least two candidates in the bag for the PRC; Biden and Yang, and they may even combine that into a ticket possibly.

I don't know that they can be blamed for betting on Germany as the rising star. That did in fact materialize and exists to this day with a lot of the Anglo-American establishment in the mix there. Both Hitler and Tojo saw the handwriting on the wall for the British Empire, and WWII effectively took the piss out of them. The UK was the ultimate loser of WWII. Although, even India's Independence didn't make that clear. The Suez Crisis is what made them realize they were no longer the top dog--a bitter pill to be sure, but not as bitter as it was for the French.


Unfortunately, we're in the process of having our own ''Suez Crisis'' real soon.
#15006910
AFAIK wrote:Not true of Guantanamo bay and Chagos.

The British haven't asked us to leave Chagos. The US doesn't recognize the Castro dictatorship. Not to worry. The lease is up in 2033 or thereabouts. So we're only there for another 14 years.
#15007033
ccdan wrote:If so, why is there still american presence in Guantanamo Bay?

The US has a lease agreement with the government of Cuba--the one that was overthrown by the Castro dictatorship.

ccdan wrote:It's not up to the US to "recognize" anything. Cuba is a UN member.

The UN does not dictate US foreign policy.
Blackface: Canada's Racist PM

So Trudeau is a literal racist. Who are these peo[…]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/netanyahu-s-offer-for-[…]

EU-BREXIT

You haven't got one shred of evidence that proves[…]

Actually, Special Olympian already provided video[…]