5,000 rally in Ginowan against Osprey deployment

This aircraft is 23 years old now, but already 2 crashes this year. I can't say if its just bad luck or if the craft is just too unsafe, but the fact remains that the people don't want it. Its them the U.S. claims to be here to protect, and if the people feel threatened by the Osprey then the Osprey must go. If the U.S. feels weak without the Osprey then the U.S. is welcome to withdraw the military completely. Its a pretty simple equation.

I heard their was a plan to sell off these horrible planes to the Chinese??

wow, media will cover this, but not any demonstrations against Nukes in Tokyo

IncenseAndPeppermints: How many light aviation crafts have crashed, and how many fishing boats have in the same time? These people have no sense of relativity. The Osprey has had seven accidents involving injuries and fatalities, another ten where the damage was only to the plane. How many fishing accidents happen in Okinawan waters? I can bet you plenty more, and most are never even reported.

The intention is to deploy Ospreys in Futenma, a highly built up area. ONE crash could be disastrous.

It's way past the time to close the US bases in Okinawa, particularly Futenma.

The US military is not wanted and not needed here.

I would not want one of those massive things flyng over my house ever...god no! basroil people have to fish for their livliehoods.....the Osprey DO NOT have to be based there.

How many light aviation crafts have crashed, and how many fishing boats have in the same time?

How many of those had any chance of causing major havoc in a school full of kids?

These people have no sense of relativity.

As you point a finger at others, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself! Ever notice that?

The Osprey has had seven accidents involving injuries and fatalities,

Yes, but its very disconcerting that the U.S. government hides the causes of the crashes even going so far as to destroy the evidence of the crashed Osprey and its black box too. Yes, it happened.

@cwhite

wow, media will cover this, but not any demonstrations against Nukes in Tokyo

yeah, you're right, it means the japanese don't want any MV-22 Osprey aircrafts but they're intelligent enough to know withtout nuclear power Japan is not competitive. Don't you like nukes?

Nuclear power or demonstrations against it has nothing to do with this article.

BOT, the Japanese (government and citizens) are 100% in their right (mind) to question, oppose and protest anything that poses a direct threat or danger to their existence. Those of you who think otherwise must be out of your minds!

Clemens SimonJun. 18, 2012 - 03:04PM JST : Why don't they oppose driving cars? Or oppose discriminatory laws and practices against non-Japanese? Or oppose the use of unsafe ships? Clearly neither is in their right mind, simply over-reacting to outside pressure. Okinawa in particular (and Japan in general) is very, and usually over-, protective of what they consider traditional values and lifestyles. Their protest of the MV-22 has nothing to do with the aircraft, rather to do with the very existence of an army that they were brainwashed to hate. Had a private airline in Okinawa purchased MV-22 planes for commercial use, there would be no such reaction.

basroil: But they do. It's called having an opinion. Going from there to actually taking it to the streets or signing a petition... Well, there just ain't that many days in a week and the line needs to be drawn somewhere - priorities and all that. Discriminatory laws and practices against non-Japanese, however, does not pose a direct threat to their existence and you will (therefore) not find many Japanese people opposing or protesting. How many of those non-Japanese you talk of have signed petitions/protested?

Yes, but its very disconcerting that the U.S. government hides the causes of the crashes even going so far as to destroy the evidence of the crashed Osprey and its black box too. Yes, it happened.

IncenseAndPeppermints - I'm glad someone has the courage to post the truth!

Their protest of the MV-22 has nothing to do with the aircraft, rather to do with the very existence of an army that they were brainwashed to hate.

basroil - those who were brainwashed to hate the Americans died out long ago.

Those who resent the American military presence in Okinawa are younger than WWII and base their dislike on the conduct of US military, on the rapes, the violence, constant car crashes and simply using up valuable space. And now, to top it all, the intention to deploy a potentially dangerous aircraft in a built up area with many schools.

Why not have US troops on US soil?

Okinawa is not US soil.

basroil

Okinawa in particular (and Japan in general) is very, and usually over-, protective of what they consider traditional values and lifestyles.

By opposing the MV-22 they are definitely not (over)protecting their traditional values and lifestyles. If for nothing else, it seems more like the USA is doing exactly that! Hmmm... (?) The Japanese are opposing the aircraft because they believe it's a danger to their lives.

wow only 5000 out of 1.3 million so the other like the v-22

IncenseAndPeppermints - I'm glad someone has the courage to post the truth!

Its under the wiki on the Osprey, the April 2010 crash in Afghanistan which killed four, including one civilian.

No idea why some people buck so gawd awful hard for the deployment of the Osprey. Its like they have some personal stock in it or something. Or is it just wood for anything military?

No idea why some people buck so gawd awful hard for the deployment of the Osprey. Its like they have some personal stock in it or something. Or is it just wood for anything military?

That has to be part of it. And the fact that they are foreign military makes it worse. I wonder how Americans would feel if they had to put up with foreign troops on their soil?

Then there was the helicopter crash at the international university in 2004.

And the fact that Futenma is a very built up area. Lots of people in a very small place. Not an ideal spot for any kind of aircraft. Just one Osprey crashing into a residential area, school, or shopping area would take a lot of lives.

You could look at it that the Osprey is the last straw.

Not much in itself perhaps, but this island has put up with the US military for far too long.

basroil: The Japanese have no control over how the US uses their Osprey over Japanese soil (and citizens). It's a whole different story with their own (unsafe) cars, boats or fireworks. Many Japanese car manufactures, for example, have in fact ordered recalls on numerous occasions in the past, as you may remember.

Ginowan Mayor Atsushi Sakima told the gathering that the Osprey is not safe

Maybe the Pentagon should hire this expert as an advisor on the aircraft it employs. I'm sure the Marine Corps never really thought about the safety (and cost) of its own personnel until the Mayor of Ginowan made his assessment.

IncenseAndPeppermints: "I can't say if its just bad luck or if the craft is just too unsafe, but the fact remains that the people don't want it."

So then you don't know. Yeah, seems the people don't want it. They also don't want anything else save the dinner put on their tables by the bases being there while they slag the bases at the same time. I'm pretty sure they don't want their teachers having to stand up to a Japanese flag and facing a firing squad if they don't (instead of slightly less extremist measures). Seems they don't know what they want, in fact.

I do agree, though, that deployment of the Osprey should be delayed pending investigation of the crashes of late, but my guess is that's not at all what many if not all of these people care about, but just don't want the US military their (as they depend on their protection to be able to say as such).

smithinjapan:

They also don't want anything else save the dinner put on their tables by the bases being there while they slag the bases at the same time

You're right about them slagging the bases. Them and the rest of Japan, in fact! In a poll conducted 2 years ago, 43% of the Japanese population was in favor of the complete closure of the bases while 42% wanted reduction. I'd really like to know, though, where you get your info from regarding "them" not being able to food on their tables without the bases being there. Thanks in advance.

smithinjapan: Sixty-five years after the end of the war, U.S. bases still occupy 10.2% of the Okinawan islands and 18.4% of Okinawa’s main island alone. Thanks to Okinawans’ efforts to achieve self reliance, only about 5% of its economy depends on the U.S. bases, down by two-thirds from the level in 1972 when Okinawa was returned to Japan.

smithinjapan: Finally, who is the USA "protecting" the people of Okinawa (or the people of Japan, for that matter) from? Isn't it more likely that the USA is protecting its own (economic interests). Japan (as opposed to the USA) doesn't have any enemies, so your so-called "protection" is pretty much a moot point. That's what really needs to be seriously reported and discussed (while you're still here), don't you think?

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is a remarkable aircraft. It's had it's problems. But it is the future of United States Military no doubt. So protest, kick and scream all you want, and see how it comes out. I doubt it will do much good. Just ask any Native American.

smithinjapan:

In more detail: this means that in 1995, the revenues from the bases included $500 million from land leased to the bases, $400 million from local civilian employment on the bases, and another $400 million from direct consumption by military personnel and their dependents: a total annual revenue of $1.3 billion. However, that figure testifies to a sharp drop to five percent of the gross prefectural product from 16 percent in 1972. Clearly, base revenues effect Okinawa's economy less significantly than before, especially since the bases now employ only 8,200 local citizens, down from 40,000 earlier. Okinawans are no longer highly dependent on the American military presence for employment.

Ota Masahide, Former Governor of Okinawa

Clemens SimonJun. 18, 2012 - 08:57PM JST

The Japanese have no control over how the US uses their Osprey over Japanese soil (and citizens). It's a whole different story with their own (unsafe) cars, boats or fireworks. Many Japanese car manufactures, for example, have in fact ordered recalls on numerous occasions in the past, as you may remember.

The airplanes still follow designated flight paths the same as any other aircraft. In fact, they are able to use higher altitudes (safer altitudes) than the vehicles they will be replacing. Additionally, the main risks involved are, as with any air vehicle, especially rotor ones, take off and landing. As those involve fairly small areas near the center of the base, there is little if any risk to the general population. In contrast, cars are used mainly in populated areas, by untrained operators, and with higher mechanical failure probability.

The bottom line is aircraft taking off and landing in a built up area like Futenma is NOT a good idea.

Whether it's Ospreys or whatever.

Note that Naha airport is right by the ocean.

And of course, the history of crashes of the Osprey do not recommend it!

Of the students in the Current Affairs in English class at Okinawa International University, not one attended the rally. The reasons they gave were they didn't know about it (47%), they had part-time jobs to go to (21%), they wanted to work on base and it would have been hypocritical to attend (5%). In class, students had read an opinion piece from the Daily Yomiuri <>http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T120612003991.htm<>. After reading the article, only one student in the class mentioned that he, "was still wondering whether the Osprey is good or not," and even he voted against the proposition that Okinawa was an ideal place for the deployment of the aircraft. In other words, even after hearing the case for bringing the Osprey to Okinawa, 100% of the students rejected it. Since all but one of them are majoring in English, it seems unlikely that their views would be less favorable to the US presence than those of the general public.

Okinawa is to Japan what Puerto Rico is to the USA!

I wonder what would happen if they hold a referendum on a continued "prefecture-hood", independence, or continuance of the "status quo " that includes the occupying US bases.