national

U.S. deploys 9 more Osprey aircraft to Futenma

71 Comments

Nine Osprey tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey aircraft arrived at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Futenma in Okinawa on Monday, Japanese Defense Ministry officials said. Eight arrived at around 10 a.m., while the ninth touched down in the afternoon.

The defense ministry said it received notice of the deployment from the U.S. only one hour before the first eight Osprey departed from Iwakuni, Yamaguchi Prefecture, at 8 a.m., NHK reported. The Ospreys have been at Iwakuni, undergoing maintenance checks for the past 10 days. They are part of a second squadron of 12 Ospreys that the U.S. is deploying in Okinawa.

The Japanese government last year approved the deployment of the Ospreys after receiving security assurances from the Pentagon. Okinawans were concerned about two Osprey crashes last year, in Florida and Morocco.

Military officials say the hybrid aircraft which can take off and land like a helicopter, is critical for regional security efforts.

The Osprey were scheduled to arrive in Futenma earlier this month, but after a U.S. HH-60 rescue helicopter crashed in a training area at Camp Hansen on Aug 5, the U.S. postponed their deployment.

© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

The Osprey were scheduled to arrive in Futenma earlier this month, but after a U.S. HH-60 rescue helicopter crashed in a training area at Camp Hansen on Aug 5, the U.S. postponed their deployment.

They were only "delayed" a couple days at most, and no biggie really, no matter what is trying to be inferred here.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

No "biggie" that the Okinawans don't want them there... who cares what they want right Yubaru? I say this because what is being "infered" here is that it is against local will of the democratic people of Okinawa.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

12 Ospreys will not be enough to stop invasion. What about 120?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Shall we hold a vote on the training and equipment that US Forces in Japan need? Do Okinawans choose the same for the JSDF? Do the townspeople vote on the firetrucks that local fire dept uses? Do they take a ballot every time they buy a new police car? How about voting on what types of treatment are offered at the local hospital? Seems a rather cumbersome and tedious way to do things.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

As a democrazy and freedom loving country, the american regime sure respects the rights of citizens of their allied nations.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

The Japanese government last year approved the deployment of the Ospreys

@tiger- exactly whose and which rights are being violated?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The Japanese government last year approved the deployment of the Ospreys after receiving security assurances from the Pentagon.

This line is TOTALLY misconstrued and has nothing to do with whether or not the Osprey were deployed or not.

Japan has ZERO say in what aircraft the US chooses to deploy here. The US out of courtesy to the Japanese government notified them of the deployment and was not asking for nor seeking their approval.

The Japanese put their "stamp" on it for the benefit of their own population. Plus it would be kind of hard for Japan to purchase an aircraft that they would not agree with, seeing as how they are also looking into purchasing the Osprey for their own use.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

These Ospreys are needed on Okinawa soil to avoid ground combat with Chinese troops.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

realdoll: "No "biggie" that the Okinawans don't want them there... who cares what they want right Yubaru?"

The opinion of every man, woman, and child matters -- especially the former two, who voted overwhelmingly to keep in power the people who have allowed the Ospreys to fly in Japan. But hey, what party does Nakaima belong to again?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

especially the former two, who voted overwhelmingly to keep in power the people who have allowed the Ospreys to fly in Japan.

You make it sound like the Osprey was an issue during the election.

Let me tell you it wasn't with the exception of Okinawa and the woman who won her seat is against them anyway.

And here is the bigger issue, even though that wasnt your intent with your post here, the issue should be put to all Japanese people, not just in Okinawa, and see how the rest of the country feels about the bases being here in Japan.

Then the government should take action based upon the results. If they vote yes, then move the damn base somewhere else in the country. If the people vote no, then ask the US to leave.

Never going to happen but it is the best way to find out.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@realdoll: You obviously don't see the bigger picture here. But let me say this: Only a handful of people are complaining about The Ospreys being deployed there. But the MAJORITY of them, Including The Japanese Military don't mind considering they're sent there to help protect Japan, especially from an Aggressive China. So, obviously your opinion doesn't matter, now does it?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Cool! But add some B2 Spirits, too! Then, China really has the pants full!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Only a handful of people are complaining about The Ospreys being deployed there.

It's more than a handful but less than what the local media would like everyone to think and surveys taken CAN NOT be trusted due to the types of questions being asked, which are all geared towards a negative response.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

This is simply the US reminding Japan who is the boss. Japan is not.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I believe it's just a matter of time before the Ospreys are deployed at Yokota, Camp Fuji and Misawa air Base.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yubaru: "You make it sound like the Osprey was an issue during the election."

Taking a 'tougher stance' against China was an issue (at the same time Abe pledged to improve relations!), and that requires backroom deals with the US. You ever notice you've stopped hearing talk about the bases?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The Ospreys are going to stay. The Japanese people have voted in the politicians who will not tell the U.S. gov't to cancel the Osprey deployment or remove the U.S. bases.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Anyone who can read Japanese should read an eye-opening book titled "Introduction to Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement" authored and edited by Hiromori Maedomari (Sogensha Publishing Co., 2013). Maedomari is former editor in chief with the Ryukyu Shimpo, which some poster here derided as a cheap tabloid, and is now teaching at Okinawa International University.

Maedomari says the title of the agreement is misleading and so suggests it be changed to "Japan-U.S. Agreement on the Status of U.S. Forces Japan." The treaty gives the U.S. forces complete freedom to use bases carried over from the Occupation days and/or acquire new ones whenever needed and wherever, Okinawa or mainland -- thus, guaranteeing an unfettered and freewheeling status to the U.S. forces.

So, technically, it's not only Okinawa but whole Japan that is a U.S. military colony. When the U.S. side wants to deploy such and such weapons (Ospreys, for example), all it has to do is simply notify Japan about it. The Japanese government cannot say anything but "Yes," as former Prime Minister Noda betrayed the fact unguardedly at a Diet session.

There's something seriously and fatally wrong with such bilateral relations.

P.S. Colin Jones writes a detailed review of the book in the August 5 Japan Times ("SOFA: An unequal treaty that trumps the Constitution?").

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

CrazyJoeAug. 12, 2013 - 09:07PM JST I believe it's just a matter of time before the Ospreys are deployed at Yokota, Camp Fuji and Misawa air Base.

I also believe it's a matter of time before the JSDF buys them and they start operating off the new "pocket carriers" in the fleet.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Anyone who can read Japanese should read an eye-opening book titled "Introduction to Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement" authored and edited by Hiromori Maedomari (Sogensha Publishing Co., 2013). Maedomari is former editor in chief with the Ryukyu Shimpo, which some poster here derided as a cheap tabloid, and is now teaching at Okinawa International University.

Just because he became a professor doesnt change the FACT that the Shimpo is nothing more than a tabloid when it comes to US military issues. You want to know why? Because the will NEVER publish anything about the good things that the military does for the local communities. They even managed to avoid publishing anything of value during Operation Tomodachi, which involved literally thousands of Okinawa based US Military troops.

So now the tabloid editor in chief is spewing his rhetoric to another generation of children who know no better and are being brainwashed just like kids in North Korea. University is a place for students to learn how to think, not be told what to think.

Taking a 'tougher stance' against China was an issue

Boy going out on a limb to defend your position aren't we?!?! This issue and the Okinawa base issues and Osprey are different things altogether, but I'll give you a point for trying.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It's...a...friggen...aircraft. There are 6,597,354,231 more important stories in the world.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

All you liberals and Okinawa sympathizers who are anti-US military, get over it! Firstly, this is NOT real serious news, just another day at Futenma. The Ospreys are here to stay, personally, I love them, quit throwing a fit. Secondly, They are not going anywhere, you guys have to just deal with it and oh, well and guess what, it won't impact your lives in directly or indirectly in ANY way, so grin and bear it, unless you want to start a bloody revolution. Good luck in gathering a huge mob for it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan needs the US help for his own protection against China. The most Ospreys and fighters stationed in the area the better. So, the problem is not the Ospresy's but Futenma. They should move the base ASAP. The Okinawans has the right to protest against the dangerous flights over their homes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Japanese should abolish Article Nine. Also, if America is so powerful why are we broke financially? Why is our infrastructure crumbling? Why have we not run a trade surplus since the 1970s? Japan has more power over us than we them.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Ospreys are far quieter than the helicopters currently operating in Japan and anywhere else for that matter. In a tactical environment that means the enemy never hears them until they are right on top of them. These impressive machines and they have developed an impressive track record. But noise problems are not the real issue here. Nobody denies the V-22 is ridiculously expensive, but nobody can deny the fact that over the last decade there has been only few V-22 accident even though these machines has been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the Marines declare the Osprey is the best vertical aircraft in existence. Ask the USAF and Marine pilots who fly them who will tell you, they already knew that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

your country,america is blackmailing Japan to sign the TPP agreement . If Japan does not want to become the new Iraq or the new Singapore how they want the Americans, Japan should abolish Article 9 of the constitution and bring back his army.

No for TPP!!!

That's the price you pay when you declare war on a country from trying to stop you from invading another, especially when the country that is helping you is giving you the natural fuel source you need advance, grow and apply it to your everyday life function. Also, the average Japanese doesn't have neither the man power or the stomach to rebuild its military to do so. So Japan will be for the next foreseeable future be dependent on the US for its protection. Two things Japan won't do: abolish article 9 and abolish the monarchy. As I said, the ones that don't like it, need to man up and suck it up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Ospreys are far quieter than the helicopters currently operating in Japan and anywhere else for that matter.

Negative. You have obviously never heard an Osprey. They are far louder than the old CH-46's.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Owens

Where does it say V-22 are far louder? Can you send me a link on your claim? The V-22 noise level is only slightly lower than the CH-46 when the craft is flying in airplane mode and just as noisy in helicopter mode. However, the standard V-22 has a maximum cruising speed of 275 knots (520 kph), twice that of the CH-46, and with its in-flight refueling capabilities, the aircraft can be launched from carriers out at sea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Personal experience. I work with both on a near daily basis. The Osprey is louder.

I agree that Osprey is a much better machine than the CH-46. From a tactical standpoint it's a kick-ass tool to have in our arsenal. But it is not quieter.

If you are referring to the Marine Corps environment study on the Osprey, did you not consider the possibility of that pub. being biased? Trust me, it is. And I say this as a prior Marine and someone who fully supports the deployment of the V-22.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@owens

Personal experience. I work with both on a near daily basis. The Osprey is louder.

Wow! I just want to say, thank you for the jobs you do and Thank you for your service.

I agree that Osprey is a much better machine than the CH-46. From a tactical standpoint it's a kick-ass tool to have in our arsenal. But it is not quieter.

Very interesting you say that. I saw on once and I thought it was quite loud myself, but I admit, it does look amazing.

If you are referring to the Marine Corps environment study on the Osprey, did you not consider the possibility of that pub. being biased? Trust me, it is. And I say this as a prior Marine and someone who fully supports the deployment of the V-22.

I have a question, since you work on these amazing aircrafts all the time. Are there any potential problems now or occurring that the public needs to be worried about? What is the liability of the aircraft or are the publics fears justified?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan needs the US help for his own protection against China. The most Ospreys and fighters stationed in the area the better. So, the problem is not the Ospresy's but Futenma. They should move the base ASAP. The Okinawans has the right to protest against the dangerous flights over their homes.

I agree, while there is a library full of history about who did this or who did that with regards to the base and the buildings and community that surrounds it, the base needs to be moved as soon as possible.

But that being said, the local government is to blame as well for this dragging on for nearly 20 years now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As far as I know, there is nothing to suggest that the Osprey is any more dangerous than any other aircraft. It's clocking a lot of flight hours and nothing has happened yet. But, I'm not an engineer or mechanic so I can't comment on specifics.

I was just pointing out the sfjp330 really has no idea what he is talking about. He seems to have some technical knowledge he picked up from internet sources, but he has know idea how the Marines Corps uses the Osprey in a combat environment. Especially from a special ops perspective.

Not to mention he contradicted himself. In the first post he said the Osprey is "far quieter." In the second post he said its about the same. So which is it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Your comment on my post is completely off the mark. Local papers report "the good things about the good things the military does for the local communities" but maybe not as much and sensationally as you wish.

The question at issue is the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement -- under what circumstances it was signed and how, for what purpose. Read the book or have someone read it for you before whining about it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Owens Aug. 13, 2013 - 07:55AM JST Not to mention he contradicted himself. In the first post he said the Osprey is "far quieter." In the second post he said its about the same. So which is it?

Let me spell it out to you so you can understand. Like any helicopter, it makes a lot of noise on the ground or when hovering, but it’s quieter than CH-46 when it converts to airplane-mode because of its long rotor blades.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Your comment on my post is completely off the mark. Local papers report "the good things about the good things the military does for the local communities" but maybe not as much and sensationally as you wish.

Nice try again at obfuscating the discussion, you should know better by now. You are the one who brought up the Ryukyu Shimpo, my response was about "that" newspaper and "it's" former editor.

The question at issue is the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement -- under what circumstances it was signed and how, for what purpose. Read the book or have someone read it for you before whining about it.

Again, wrong answer, the question at issue is the US deploying more Ospreys here in Okinawa, or didnt you read the article either?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, now let me spell it out for you.

It is not far quieter than any other helicopter. You have no personal experience with it, you have likely never been anywhere near one.

Also, the Osprey would never purposely be placed right above the enemy. Why? So it can be blasted with an RPG? And even if it were to be placed right above the enemy, it would have to hover now wouldn't it? Making it LOUD! If it converts to airplane mode, it is no longer a helo now is it? Regardless, it is not quieter. And you still contradicted yourself.

You can read all the tech info you like, but don't comment on something you have absolutely no practical or hands on experience with.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Osprey in hover mode is as loud as or louder than the helicopters they replaced, that there should be no discussion about.

However, due to their ability to fly like an airplane, and when in that mode, they are supposedly quieter, only because they can fly higher than the helicopters which dissipates the actual noise and make them seem quieter.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru (Aug. 13, 2013 - 08:15AM JST),

As you say, "the question at issue is the US deploying more Ospreys here in Okinawa." All right, but why is the U.S. deploying more Ospreys here in Okinawa despite our all-out opposition against it? Why do U.S. bases occupy so much of the land mass and why can U.S. forces train here with such impunity as if Okinawa -- its land, skies and waters -- were their own?

The answer boils down to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the concomitant Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a vicious and unequal agreement as far as we are concerned. There's no obfuscation on my part about this.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As you say, "the question at issue is the US deploying more Ospreys here in Okinawa." All right, but why is the U.S. deploying more Ospreys here in Okinawa despite our all-out opposition against it? Why do U.S. bases occupy so much of the land mass and why can U.S. forces train here with such impunity as if Okinawa -- its land, skies and waters -- were their own?

Because they can.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Because they can.

That. But also because they are replacing the older and far less reliable CH-46. And, perhaps more importantly, the Japanese governments wants the Marines in Okinawa as a deterrent to potential Chinese and North Korean aggression. The Marines and Ospreys are a package deal.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Besides the increase in the cost of living as a result of yen devaluation and a forthcoming increase in sales tax Okinawans have to contend with even more US military air-crafts. Tokyo has been stone-deaf for years.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bass4funk, Owens and louis tan:

If your government thinks the way you do, then they are a real bunch of hoodlums. Hoodlums only think they can squat a city section no matter what or force gentle residents to sign a contract..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If your government thinks the way you do, then they are a real bunch of hoodlums. Hoodlums only think they can squat a city section no matter what or force gentle residents to sign a contract..

Sorry, but you're not getting any sympathy from me. You may NOT like the current situation, but how did it come to this? Had Japan NOT did what it did 70 years ago, we wouldn't be here on JT discussing this topic. When Japan attacked PH they were THE hoodlums that started this clock of aggression and as a result, here we are. It is what it is. Deal with it. No matter how people like you and Bertie object, you have to either live with it or relocate to somewhere else. I'm not gloating, I don't think we are superior or better than the Japanese, this is where we are now and the people have to deal with it. So I think your bent up frustration is directed at the wrong people. Or let's say hypothetically, America were to leave Japan, close all its bases, there is NO way if there were ever an attack on Japan that it could win against China or North Korea on man power alone it would be a slaughter. So the best thing for Japan and everyone else's sake that the US stay here and do whatever it is they need to do to keep the country and people safe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk、

Was it you or someone else that said U.S. forces deploy here simply because Japan started the Pacific War by attacking Pearl Harbor but was defeated? In other words, Japan is put under occupation as a retaliation against what it did in 1941. In 1952, what you say may have been true, but, look, 68 years have passed since the end of that war.

In spite of yourself, you are betraying the very fact that the U.S. military deploys here as occupation forces. You are frank and candid to admit that fact but it directly runs counter to the official lines by Washington that justify its collecting large sums of protection money from Japan in the name of "host nation support."

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Was it you or someone else that said U.S. forces deploy here simply because Japan started the Pacific War by attacking Pearl Harbor but was defeated? In other words, Japan is put under occupation as a retaliation against what it did in 1941. In 1952, what you say may have been true, but, look, 68 years have passed since the end of that war.

Japan is NOT occupied as a country as per the SOFA agreement, however Japan doesn't have a real military to deal with hostile threats, particularly from North Korea or China. If both sides come to an agreement to cancel the agreement and Japan reevaluates article 9, then perhaps, but Japan needs a strong man force which it doesn't have and you think, Japanese men would volunteer or what if Japan were to introduce a draft system, how do you think that would work out?

In spite of yourself, you are betraying the very fact that the U.S. military deploys here as occupation forces.

That is how YOU choose to see it, it's not, but let's play Devil's advocate, let's just say for hypothetical reasons it were, still nothing you could do about it. Again, Japan has no one else except for themselves for now how we deal with these issues. If you don't think so, then you actually think the US would be here at all if Japan didn't do what it did almost 70 years ago?!

You are frank and candid to admit that fact but it directly runs counter to the official lines by Washington that justify its collecting large sums of protection money from Japan in the name of "host nation support."

Sorry, that's your personal pragmatic spin on the issue.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa,

Your posts are all filled with the same old catch phrases. No need to be so repetitive. Just give us a link to a Gavan McCormack article and allow us to get your ideas straight from the source.

The US stayed on Okinawa because it was a well-suited and strategic location to house troops as part of its containment strategy of communism--USSR and China being the obvious threats to American interests. After the Cold War ended, the rise of China and an increasingly belligerent North China prompted the US AND Japan to feel US troops in Okinawa still have a strategic value.

The US is not an occupation force by any legal definition. To continuing state that it is an occupation force is dishonest.

It is a very unfortunate situation for the Okinawa people, no doubt. But it is what it is. Debating the issue with such rigid revisionism and dishonesty solves nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

On the facade, Japan may not be said to be occupied by U.S. forces but in reality it is. Why? The U.S. occupation forces, a.k.a. Allied Forces and their bases remained intact even after Japan restored its "sovereignty" in 1952, with the name only changed to USFJ. In other words, the USFJ are nothing but occupation forces carried over from the Occupation days. That is especially true in Okinawa..

You may say this is my personal viewpoint. But, no, it isn't. It is the hard reality that we are witnessing and experiencing everyday here in Okinawa. Mind you, the culprit that is responsible for all this is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the concomitant japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.

The surprising fact Maedomari exposes in his book mentioned above is that U.S. negotiators, John Foster Dulles and his staff, were well aware of the injustice and abnormality they were going to impose on Japan. Another surprising fact Maedomari points out is that the Japanese delegates didn't know the content of the English-written treaty they were going to sign until hours before actual signing took place at a Presdio Army barrack.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Another surprising fact Maedomari points out is that the Japanese delegates didn't know the content of the English-written treaty they were going to sign until hours before actual signing took place at a Presdio Army barrack

Then why did they sign it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Owens,

Then why did they sign it?

Because, otherwise, Japan couldn't restore sovereignty, however nominal it may have been. Only Hayato Ikeda, of all delegates, accompanied Shigeru Yoshida, then Prime Minister and head of the Japanese delegates, to the signing venue at Presidio. Yoshida also knew injustice contained in the treaty provisions and so told Ikeda he alone would sign the document, saying it would smear Ikeda's future political career if he signed it.

The 1951 Security Treaty was revised in 1960, but the spirit and nature of the original treaty was carried over to the revised treaty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ok, so they didn't know what they were signing, but they signed it anyway. They reviewed it, gained some more leverage to negotiate with the US on more equals terms, they revised the treaty to better suit Japanese interests.

They Japanese gained a security blanket that allowed them to continue along with the pacificst constistution, rely completly on the US for its security, and thus devote all their energy and resources on economic development transforming Japan into one of the wealthiest countries the world have ever seen?

Oh, that's what happened?

Sounds like they got a pretty good deal. Stop whining.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Owens,

Dulles knew of injustice involved in the security treaty. So did Yoshida, but even so he was its most ardent supporter. Subsequent LDP governments have also been proactive supporters of the security treaty.

But injustice is injustice, and it is Okinawa that carries the brunt of that injustice most, forced to host the bulk of U.S. bases.

Stop whining? Don't intimidate and don't brandish a hoodlum's irrational logic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@voice

bass4funk,

On the facade, Japan may not be said to be occupied by U.S. forces but in reality it is. Why? The U.S. occupation forces, a.k.a. Allied Forces and their bases remained intact even after Japan restored its "sovereignty" in 1952, with the name only changed to USFJ. In other words, the USFJ are nothing but occupation forces carried over from the Occupation days. That is especially true in Okinawa..

You can call then whatever you like, so now you are a politician a board certified Okinawan historian? You fought in the second WW? You were there in 1952 at the signing and name change? You can call it what you like, the US, unless otherwise specified by the the two countries will remain in Japan to help defend it, until further notice. ou don't have to like it, how you or I feel is irrelevant, it's what Tokyo and Washington decide that's important and so far, both sides seem content at this point and time.

You may say this is my personal viewpoint. But, no, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

It is the hard reality that we are witnessing and experiencing everyday here in Okinawa. Mind you, the culprit that is responsible for all this is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the concomitant japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.

You just have to deal with it or you can move somewhere else.

The surprising fact Maedomari exposes in his book mentioned above is that U.S. negotiators, John Foster Dulles and his staff, were well aware of the injustice and abnormality they were going to impose on Japan. Another surprising fact Maedomari points out is that the Japanese delegates didn't know the content of the English-written treaty they were going to sign until hours before actual signing took place at a Presdio Army barrack.

Again, you reap what you sow.

They Japanese gained a security blanket that allowed them to continue along with the pacificst constistution, rely completly on the US for its security, and thus devote all their energy and resources on economic development transforming Japan into one of the wealthiest countries the world have ever seen?

Japan came out ahead, it's now a peaceful nation as Owen said, one of the wealthiest and most modern of all the Asian nations, so Japan came out way ahead. All in all it worked out quite well.

But injustice is injustice, and it is Okinawa that carries the brunt of that injustice most, forced to host the bulk of U.S. bases.

Well, they have to put them somewhere in Japan and from a military POV, Okinawa strategically seems like the optimum place to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bas4funk

You don't deny the U.S. Forces in Japan,, a.k.a. Allied Forces, were occupation forces from 1945 to 1951, do you? Then in 1951. Japan was allowed to sign a peace treaty with the Allied Powers headed by the U.S. and get independence.

But on that same day, Japan had to sign another treaty, a security treaty, with the U.S. only, that guaranteed the continued presence in Japan of the U.S. Forces with bases remaining intact. (Okinawa's occupation continued until 1972 and then U.S. Forces Okinawa were integrated with the USFJ that year.)

I think that security treaty was a trick. You may deny that but, if so, please explain why.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Lets say, it were a trick for arguments sake...still, Japan came out way ahead and is a better country for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You mean, it was just a word game? Nonsense. All I can say to you is: Shame on you and on your democracy-principled great country. Is that the type of a country your founding fathers dreamed of?

The founding fathers never knew that one day the country of Japan would bomb our shores.

So you are saying that Japan is a bad place to live? You hate how life is here? Again, if you don't like the current events of this country, you are always free to move and live somewhere else. Japan is free democratic country, not like the US, but still, it is not a totalitarian or communist country. So what are you whining about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

You mean, it was just a word game? Nonsense. Is that the kind of country your founding fathers dreamed of?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I will go by what I said, earlier if you read my posts. If you don't approve, then there is nothing more I can tell you, this is how the current situation is and will be for a very long time. If you want to vent your concerns, write your local politicians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

A hoodlum thinks something that suits him well is good and just. That's his only yardstick to tell good from bad. He doesn't care whatsoever about how his selfish behavior might harm his neighbors.

Stealing land and making noises (noise pollutions) with the heavy-metals at late night are nothing wrong as far as he likes the sound and music. Is that what you want to say?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A hoodlum thinks something that suits him well is good and just. That's his only yardstick to tell good from bad. He doesn't care whatsoever about how his selfish behavior might harm his neighbors.

Stealing land and making noises (noise pollutions) with the heavy-metals at late night are nothing wrong as far as he likes the sound and music. Is that what you want to say?

Then in that sense, if the US really stole the land, why can't I get an automatic passport and citizenship, actually all Americans by default should be given automatic citizenship. It only makes sense, since this is our land as you say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

A hoodlum's unsocial behavior is not officially and legally sanctioned. You are like saying why it shouldn't be.

You seem to think U.S. bases in Okinawa sit on legally acquired land. You may say Japan was defeated in the war and so there's nothing wrong for the victorious U.S. to use the land for whatever purpose. You are wrong.

Let me quote from The Japan Times:

"Almost all of the U.S. bases in Okinawa - Kadena Air Base and Futenma Air Station naturally included - sit on private lands that were requisitioned by U.S. forces in blatant violation of international law. Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land stipulates: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”

So, under this convention, the lands in question (involving about 38,000 landholders) are stolen goods. Can you deny that?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa Aug. 17, 2013 - 06:31AM JST So, under this convention, the lands in question (involving about 38,000 landholders) are stolen goods. Can you deny that?

If you didn't know, political boundaries change over time through wars, treaties, and trade. Look at the history of all wars, nothing stays the same.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

skiff330,

It's not political boundaries but territorial boundaries that "change over time through wars, treaties and trade." The fences surrounding these bases are not territorial boundaries but internally judicial ones subject to Japanese law.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's not political boundaries but territorial boundaries that "change over time through wars, treaties and trade." The fences surrounding these bases are not territorial boundaries but internally judicial ones subject to Japanese law.

As per the SOFA agreement. Which seems at this point in time to be cemented in place. What I want to know is, what illogical point are you trying to make. You think, you know something that the US and even Tokyo doesn't know, it's people like you that crack me up. You are angry about the US bases being in Japan and you complain as if some of the americans on can wave a wand and go to Washington and beg them to pull out all of its forces in a year. That is not going to happen. If you don't like the current arrangements, fine, I get it. You think the US are occupiers, that's your personal abstract opinion of the matter, I respect that. But unless you make your voices heard to the big wigs in Tokyo and Washington, nothing will change, maybe it will never change, as of now, is seems like everyone in Japan wants the US to stay. Don't know what else to tell you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

I don't know what state of the United States you are from.

But suppose foreign troops occupy 18% of your land (illegally confiscated land at that), control 100 percent of the airspace plus many training areas in the sky and waters in the vicinity (if your state is littoral). The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the SOFA are tricky device to make that possible.

I posed a question to you in the above posting: Can you deny that, international law, the lands on which U.S. bases sit in Okinawa (involving about 38,000 landholders) are stolen goods. You haven't answered that yet.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don't know what state of the United States you are from.

California

But suppose foreign troops occupy 18% of your land (illegally confiscated land at that), control 100 percent of the airspace plus many training areas in the sky and waters in the vicinity (if your state is littoral). The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the SOFA are tricky device to make that possible.

First of all, that would never happen, so I can't imagine that and second, the US didn't go into another country and did a surprise sneak attack on innocent people. If it did and the end result would what the current state of affairs is in Japan, then that would our fault, because we initiated the attack. We'd just have to suck it up, man up and deal with it.

I posed a question to you in the above posting: Can you deny that, international law, the lands on which U.S. bases sit in Okinawa (involving about 38,000 landholders) are stolen goods. You haven't answered that yet.

I didn't answer that part of your question because, it doesn't matter what I say, you will see things differently because that's how YOU want to see it. You call it stolen, then for YOU, it's stolen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funk,

Now you've brought that up again. This excessive U.S. military presence is the end result of the Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, U.S. forces are here as victors of the war that Japan started on December 8 (7 in Hawaii), 1941.

But your theory diagonally runs counter to official Washington lines that say the U.S. military is stationed here to defend Japan (Okinawa).

Who is telling the truth, you or Washington? You may be surprised, but I'm in complete agreement with you. It's Washington that is telling a blatant lie, and so all this security matter, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, is nothing but a sneaky device to trick people into believing that the USFJ are for the defense of Japan.

As I said on another thread ("U.S. military resumes flying HH-60 copters despite Japan's concerns"), the U.S. forces would certainly make a counterattack on an enemy if it attacked Japan. But that's because the U.S. wants to protect its sphere of influence and its own interests, not because it wants to protect the Japanese.

Just think about this. Why on earth is there any reason for an enemy to attack Japan? If an enemy were ever to launch an attack, it would be not against Japan but against U.S. bases. The brass of USFJ tout that U.S. service members are here ready to give their life to defend Japan. But, in Okinawa, after some period of training, they are deployed overseas, to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

Do you have anything contrary to say about what I said?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Now you've brought that up again. This excessive U.S. military presence is the end result of the Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, U.S. forces are here as victors of the war that Japan started on December 8 (7 in Hawaii), 1941.

If you believe it as such, who am I argue with you about that.

But your theory diagonally runs counter to official Washington lines that say the U.S. military is stationed here to defend Japan (Okinawa).

Who is telling the truth, you or Washington? You may be surprised, but I'm in complete agreement with you. It's Washington that is telling a blatant lie, and so all this security matter, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, is nothing but a sneaky device to trick people into believing that the USFJ are for the defense of Japan.

Again, you are entitled to believe that.

As I said on another thread ("U.S. military resumes flying HH-60 copters despite Japan's concerns"), the U.S. forces would certainly make a counterattack on an enemy if it attacked Japan. But that's because the U.S. wants to protect its sphere of influence and its own interests, not because it wants to protect the Japanese.

Let's say for a hypothetical argument that were true, Japan is still protected, which is the end result, so what's your problem? As long as the objective is met to protect and defend Japan, you complaining is a waste of time and wasteful stress.

Just think about this. Why on earth is there any reason for an enemy to attack Japan?

Do you really want me to list a whole litany of reasons as to why other nations don't really like Japan and would love to attack them?

If an enemy were ever to launch an attack, it would be not against Japan but against U.S. bases. The brass of USFJ tout that U.S. service members are here ready to give their life to defend Japan.

Which they would do, if called upon.

But, in Okinawa, after some period of training, they are deployed overseas, to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

First of all, Japan has one huge advantage from a tactical perspective. The country is surrounded by the ocean, if China or North Korea were to invade, it would take some time to amass a huge arsenal and to bring in the heavy Calvary of man power that China has, is impossible to do it at one time.

This is where the US and Japan's air power and naval power come into play. If both can control the air and the sea, on that level, the war is pretty much won, this is also the reason why China is working feverishly hard to develop their own stealth crafts and aircraft carriers. For that purpose, there are enough troops for such a mission. I'm pretty sure Washington took that into consideration. This is where both sides come together to completely stop or thwart a common potential enemy. So again, however you look at this relationship militarily between Japan and the US, Japan still comes out way ahead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

You write as if war with China and North Korea were imminent. Why do you think so? Japan and China are mutually interdependent economically and benefit greatly from that relationship. That is also true of the U.S.-China relations. China-possessed U.S. bonds have amounted to more than 1.3 trillion dollars this year. Why, in your opinion, should China launch an attack against the U.S. under such circumstances?

There's no doubt that North Korea is an insolvent state. How and why could such a country attack Japan or the U.S., knowing that, if they did, it would mean the collapse of the Kim regime and the nation.

Explain why, in your opinion, war with China and North Korea is near at hand and why the U.S. needs this much deterrence in Okinawa in addition to JSDF, which stands at 6th in military spending or almost on a par with Great Britain.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You write as if war with China and North Korea were imminent.

Given the events of world history, you NEVER know, you never know. So explain to me why Japan is paranoid of a rising China and why is China afraid of Abe and a military slowly and possibly rising Japan?

Why do you think so? Japan and China are mutually interdependent economically and benefit greatly from that relationship.

Doesn't mean anything, again, look at the previous world history.

That is also true of the U.S.-China relations. China-possessed U.S. bonds have amounted to more than 1.3 trillion dollars this year. Why, in your opinion, should China launch an attack against the U.S. under such circumstances?

I don't want to get off topic, but there are many reasons that China could go that route, not saying that they will, but again, China is hungry and can be vengeful and you just never know.

There's no doubt that North Korea is an insolvent state. How and why could such a country attack Japan or the U.S., knowing that, if they did, it would mean the collapse of the Kim regime and the nation.

I don't know, they kidnapped a bunch of Japanese, bombed a Korean Air flight 858, threatened to bomb the US and having an unstable leader, especially this one, an even more unstable military, has nothing to gain, but everything to prove.

Explain why, in your opinion, war with China and North Korea is near at hand and why the U.S. needs this much deterrence in Okinawa in addition to JSDF, which stands at 6th in military spending or almost on a par with Great Britain.

Sorry, I don't have that kind of clearance, but maybe someone with better military background can explain it, they would have more and deeper insight. Probably also, the NSA and CIA have a lot of classified intel as to what is going on, so even if you might think it is unnecessary, these military and spy agencies know a lot more, a whole lot more than you and me. So, I'll go with their assumptions as this being the proper arrangement between both countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

Isn't it you and your ilk that are paranoid of a rising China? You ask me to explain why Abe is so paranoid of China. I'm not in the position to answer that question. Ask Abe about it. He may be simply provoking China to achieve his political agenda.

You say mutual economic interdependence means nothing to prevent war. To me, more than 1.3 trillion-dollar worth of U.S. bonds that China possesses means a lot. You deny that? And China will attack the U.S. because it is hungry, vengeful or whatever.

Previous world history tells war occurs with due reasons. I'm asking you what reasons there are for the U.S. and Japan, on the one hand, and China and North Korea, on the other, to go to war. Your answer to that question is "China is hungry and can be vengeful and you just never know." That's a very irresponsible answer to justify this excessive and exorbitant U.S. military presence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Isn't it you and your ilk that are paranoid of a rising China? You ask me to explain why Abe is so paranoid of China. I'm not in the position to answer that question. Ask Abe about it. He may be simply provoking China to achieve his political agenda.

Could be.

You say mutual economic interdependence means nothing to prevent war. To me, more than 1.3 trillion-dollar worth of U.S. bonds that China possesses means a lot. You deny that? And China will attack the U.S. because it is hungry, vengeful or whatever.

Could happen.

Previous world history tells war occurs with due reasons. I'm asking you what reasons there are for the U.S. and Japan, on the one hand, and China and North Korea, on the other, to go to war. Your answer to that question is "China is hungry and can be vengeful and you just never know." That's a very irresponsible answer to justify this excessive and exorbitant U.S. military presence.

I'm NOT a politician, you are asking the wrong questions that seem to plague you to the wrong person.

as sfjp said,

If you didn't know, political boundaries change over time through wars, treaties, and trade. Look at the history of all wars, nothing stays the same.

And Leave it at that. You can banter about this day in and day out, think whatever you want to think, your opinion doesn't matter to the big wigs in Tokyo and the US, but the reality is, the US is here to stay, like it or not and all the arguments you bring, will not change that, period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites