Split: The removal of U.S. forces from Japan

[cranks]

chiuchimu,
Things have changed. There were a lot of brutal crimes by the US force under the US occupation right after the war. That's for sure. But in the past 20 years or so, there is only about 1 alleged rape case per year. Even if you don't trust the statics by the Japanese police, which I think is a very unreasonable attitude, rape cases by the US military personnel are under extreme scrutiny, and you just need to read the papers to know what's going on, as most of them surface on there.

And as far as I can find, all of the suspects were arrested by the Japanese police. Some of them were acquitted by the Japanese, and tired in the military court again.

http://www.cc.matsuyama-u.ac.jp/~tam...ujyuboukou.htm
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/taezaki160925/...1549864fceb030
http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-...ytopic-86.html
沖縄米兵少女暴行事件　よみがえる95年沖縄小学生集団� ��致強姦事件 - 美粒ブログ　〜水の記憶〜

The 2 week old case your brought up is actually not a rape charge, but the suspect has been arrested immediately after the incident by the Japanese police.
米海兵隊員 強制わいせつで逮捕４日未明、沖縄・那覇市のアパ...: フレッシュアイQ&A

Your view of American military personnel raping locals like crazy was correct 60 years ago. Even 40 years ago, the crime rate was somewhat high. But if you talk about the past 20 years, it is just not right.

I agree that Japan should do its own defense. But Chinese is openly claiming that Okinawa is their territory. They are pointing a bunch of nukes at Japan and sending submarines and warships INSIDE Japanese sea around Okinawa. The US military's brutality is absolutely nothing compared with what People's Liberation Army has done in Tibet.

If you want Japan to protect herself, by herself, she needs to be able to repel Chinese. If you want Okinawa to be protected by Japanese military, what is needed is Japanese military using more force against the border violations. Not Americans going home. Not at this stage anyways.

[JasonTakeshi]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

The EU is not a good example for SE Asia unless you have'nt followed what has happened to Greece earlier this year.

Why European Countries Are Like American Banks
by Andy Kessler
With Grecian urns, Irish eyes, Spanish flies, and Portuguese waterdogs all up to their eyeballs in debt, it’s only a matter of time before the whole venture implodes. Even after an almost trillion dollar bailout across Europe, Moody's Investors Service last week downgraded Greece's debt from A3 to Ba1--junk bonds.
You can bail out Wall Street banks and recapitalize their balance sheets and someday they can start lending again (we’re still waiting). On the other hand, you can’t really bail out a country without massive structural changes, cuts in entitlements, huge reduction in government as a percent of GDP, and a rewriting of the social contract between government and workers.
And NATO if you have'nt noticed is stuck in Afghanistan .

That's actually what's happening in Portugal.

[chiuchimu]

So, The topic: Japan buys out the U.S. bases and the Americans leave but we stay Allies.

Good Idea or Bad?

I think cranks agrees. anyone else for or against the main topic?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

Ever since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001, the Afghan fight has been seen as a test case for the sixty-year-old NATO alliance. Few would argue NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has passed the test. American troops joke that ISAF stands for "I Saw Americans Fight" (USNews).

Thats because the Americans are stupid and trying to call on NATO for what it isnt designed to be.

NATO was effective in the cold war as a deterrent to Soviet hard power and probably still is a deterrent to the new Russia.

A South East Asian version of NATO would be a deterrent to Chinese and American hard power but not something that could be envoked if say Thailand wanted to start a war with Chile.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by chiuchimu

So, The topic: Japan buys out the U.S. bases and the Americans leave but we stay Allies.

Good Idea or Bad?

I think cranks agrees. anyone else for or against the main topic?

Bad idea unless Japan seeks out a stronger alliance and working political relationship with other countries in South East Asia which could deter the Chinese and the Russians.

Japan has no chance on its own even IF Japan spends more on her military.

[fluffy0000]

pls explain how any force - NATO or otherwise could be a deterrent in SE Asia?

NATO was a deterrent in Europe during the Cold War because the US military
did the heavy lifting ie; ground forces, airforce, and navy backed up with nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
The military doctrine during the Cold War for NATO was to stop a massive soviet armor thrust through the Fulda Gap btween East and West Germany .

A conflict in SE Asia would be completely different and involve control of the sea lanes and oceans with a major emphasis on naval operations.

Your fantasy about any force opposing US hegemony in SE Asia without another superpower also a member of this force is pure fantasy. The US defense budget for 2010 fiscal year totals more than next 2nd,3rd,4th,5th military budgets on the planet combined and then some.

[cranks]

Now Soviet is gone and China isn't THAT much of a power. And its economy relays heavily on the US and Japan. So I don't think the same degree of superpower is needed. Still, we definitely need an aircraft carrier around there. USS George Washington is now visiting Vietnam to pressure China over the 南沙諸島 issue. Also, I don't see any chance of Japan forming a Marine. We still need some US bases in Japan, at least in any foreseeable future. The number can be decreased, and the US is actually in a process of doing so, but how far they can go depends on how much millitary resopnsibility Japan is willing to take. I don't think many Japanese people want their government to spend hundreds of billions of yen to build and maintain an aircraft carrier and other weapons.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

pls explain how any force - NATO or otherwise could be a deterrent in SE Asia?

NATO was a deterrent in Europe during the Cold War because the US military
did the heavy lifting ie; ground forces, airforce, and navy backed up with nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
The military doctrine during the Cold War for NATO was to stop a massive soviet armor thrust through the Fulda Gap btween East and West Germany .

A conflict in SE Asia would be completely different and involve control of the sea lanes and oceans with a major emphasis on naval operations.

Your fantasy about any force opposing US hegemony in SE Asia without another superpower also a member of this force is pure fantasy. The US defense budget for 2010 fiscal year totals more than next 2nd,3rd,4th,5th military budgets on the planet combined and then some.

Fantasy perhaps considering that I havent addressed the unresolved issues that exist between SEA.. but it would work.

Consider this.

Having India on board would be essential. Nuclear power and land deterrent to China. Also Indonesia is home to the fourth largest population and borders some of the vital sea lanes we talk about.

All that is needed is a restructuring of armed forces in the region and the economic growth of Indonesia, the Phillipines and we could have a serious deterrent to the US.

Im not saying we will outspend it. But the US and China will think twice before it thinks it can have its way with Asia if this sort of cooperation is worked out.

[fluffy0000]

I like your determination.

Your'e problem with India. Is that the US has already beaten you to the punch with India.

note;
That's why the US is having such a difficult time in Afghanistan which is another area of conflict between Pakistan and India besides Kashmir.

Wall Street Journal
US Pegs Globemaster Sale to fighter deal
Mon Aug 26' 2010
K. Raghu
The US defense dept. has pegged the sale at a potential 10 Boeing transport aircraft to the IAF Indian Airforce - $ 5.8 billion USD.

(Bloomberg)
India Deal for Fighter Jets Raises U.S. Stake, Replacing Russia
By Ken Fireman - February 18, 2008

The U.S. is deepening its involvement with the world's fastest-growing major economy after China as its relations with its traditional partner in the region, Pakistan, have become unsettled.
India's purchase of warplanes and the unfinished U.S.-India nuclear-power agreement are likely to be prominent on Gates's agenda during a visit that will ``reinforce the growing strength of our relationship, especially on the defense side."

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

I like your determination.

Your'e problem with India. Is that the US has already beaten you to the punch with India.

note;
That's why the US is having such a difficult time in Afghanistan which is another area of conflict between Pakistan and India besides Kashmir.

Wall Street Journal
US Pegs Globemaster Sale to fighter deal
Mon Aug 26' 2010
K. Raghu
The US defense dept. has pegged the sale at a potential 10 Boeing transport aircraft to the IAF Indian Airforce - $ 5.8 billion USD.

(Bloomberg)
India Deal for Fighter Jets Raises U.S. Stake, Replacing Russia
By Ken Fireman - February 18, 2008

The U.S. is deepening its involvement with the world's fastest-growing major economy after China as its relations with its traditional partner in the region, Pakistan, have become unsettled.
India's purchase of warplanes and the unfinished U.S.-India nuclear-power agreement are likely to be prominent on Gates's agenda during a visit that will ``reinforce the growing strength of our relationship, especially on the defense side."

The US could still have keep this relationship with India of course. The kind of South East Asian community I imagine wont be hostile to the US or China. It will just be able to compete with them both as well as stand up to the US or China.