national

U.S. sending Ospreys to Japan despite local protests

73 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments
Login to comment

Bwahahaha. Don't you hate it when I'm right. I hate it when I'm right.

It works like this. If you can't stop your own government from turning on DANGEROUS Nuclear Reactors then you definitely can't stop a few planes from flying over your heads.

I can't wait to see one though. They are very cool.

5 ( +9 / -3 )

come on there were only 5000 protesters out of the millions plus that did not want it to come.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

“Our position remains unchanged that until we are assured of the safety of these aircraft, we oppose having them here,”

Oh, please... you'd be against it if they WERE proven to be as safe as the US military claims. Anyway, they're going there.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Nice to see that public opinion still counts for nothing.

Are any of these flying death-traps based in any other countries (other than the US), and if so are they in areas with large populations?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Japan, you lost the war so suck it up. Between this, the crying over islands, the buying of islands... it is like the public doesn't seem to care that their government is screwing them over with the sales tax, the nuclear issue, the population issue....

I think it is poor of the US to do this but at the same time, they want to play with their toys, it was part of agreement after the war so... Japan doesn't have a leg to stand on. As usual.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Surround the bases...tear down the fences...beat the arrogant b-stards to a pulp.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Why are they being transported by boat? They should be able to fly across the Pacific by the way of Alaska. It is odd the latest in transport has to be shipped like cargo on a boat. Checked and they have the range to make it with stops. How very odd

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

YuriOtani: It clearly says that they are not fully assembled but will be once they arrive in Iwakuni. What's more, I don't know that they could fly that distance (admittedly I am ignorant about the range of the craft).

4 ( +6 / -2 )

There will be hell to pay when the first one crashes.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Harry_Gatto: "There will be hell to pay when the first one crashes."

IF one crashes. Let's hope none of them do. What's more... I mean, other craft they fly have crashed, right? Unless there's something to point out it was because of the hardware and not human error I don't see what the difference would be.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Osprey only has a range of 1627km... no way they could cross the Pacific.

Don't you find it odd that there are no commercial versions of the Osprey? Civil versions won't be offered until the safety problems are cleared up... so if America's CAA think they are unsafe, then why are they allowed to be deployed near populations?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Democracy American style, more dollars beats less dollars. Welcome to demogary.

BUT if the Okinawans really didn't want them they would have a general strike down there and shut down the bases.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Thunderbird: "so if America's CAA think they are unsafe, then why are they allowed to be deployed near populations?"

You said yourself, they are not commercial/civil versions -- they are military, and at this point still very much experimental in my opinion. Should they be allowed in civilian areas? I don't know -- seems like a trial and error thing, with Japan being a test case. Still, they are intended to replace an aging fleet that has seen its own fair share of accidents.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is good news. Japan does not have authority to reject the Ospreys.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

CAA ??? do you mean FAA? What does the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) have to do with airplanes? unless it's one of those new flying car planes.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

CrazyJoe: "Japan does not have authority to reject the Ospreys."

More specifically, the few upset Okinawans raising their voices don't have the authority to reject central government orders.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

commercial/civil versions are still in testing: http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Bell%20Agusta%20BA609%20/279

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan wants protection but don't want the weapons?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

avenger: If they sold them to Japan and put them in Japanese control I guarantee people would be singing the ships' praises, much like they defend US tech missile interceptors, but alas, so long as it's US military controlling it you'll hear whining.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Thunderbird2Jul. 04, 2012 - 05:13PM JST

The Osprey only has a range of 1627km... no way they could cross the Pacific.

Odd, how did the CH-46 choppers get here then? They only have a ferry range of 1110km while the osprey is three times that at 3500km.

These things usually don't just fly non-stop, but it does have a mid-air refueling capability if they wanted to. Most likely though, they go to (from) Hawaii, then another pacific island the US controls, then another, then they are probably within safe distance from Okinawa or Iwakuni. They can also be ferried across on boat quite easily.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I would assume either a military cargo ship/carrier.

Not sure if they would fit into a Galaxy X5 all folded up and even that would be 1-2 birds max per plane.

In flight refuelling would be another option but I wouldn't want to be Pilot/Crew doing that haul.

Either option depends on cost and urgency.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The U.S. military had better make sure one of those babies don't crash ... especially in Okinawa. If an accident should occur ... the wrath of the islanders will be worse than it was before reversion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If I were there I'd be protesting against the Osprey deployment too...not because I'm anti-military, American or anything but because those damn Ospreys are so accident prone they're virtually widow makers!

Seriously hope Osprey pilots get extra danger money for flying those death traps!!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I would think there is more chance of a nuclear accident than one of these crashing... and in case you are not getting my drift I mean both are likely to happen in Japan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It"S ME

I would assume either a military cargo ship/carrier. Not sure if they would fit into a Galaxy X5 all folded up and even that would be 1-2 birds max per plane.

It will not fit inside a C-5 even when folded up, they only barely fit in the hanger deck of the LHA's height wise. Width wise they are also probably to wide for C-5.

In flight refuelling would be another option but I wouldn't want to be Pilot/Crew doing that haul.

They would carry relief crews if they where doing a long ferry flight like that, remember it can carry 32 troops so it could easily carry a relief crew.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Even with a relief crew the commanding pilot would get little rest, IME.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Atleast if mine or my father experience counts.

He was a driver for a general and you would be surprised the brass got the camping beds, drivers slept in proper ones due to responsibility for cargo

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The human rights of the Okianwa inhabitants were being violated everyday, why nobody in the world conerns their hardships and bitter livings?> What are you talking about? We get jobs, can rent houses for 5x normal rent, they spend money out in town, get rent money for land i don't want, etc.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I apologise for calling the FAA the CAA... I'm British, so obviously thought of the Civil Aviation Authority rather than the American version.

Should they be allowed in civilian areas? I don't know -- seems like a trial and error thing, with Japan being a test case.

Fly the bloody things over US cities if they are so sodding safe.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well said Zichi. I have plenty of disagreements with SmithinJapan, but I prefer his opinion generally.

Personally I don't think the Osprey is unsafe. I just think its damned hard to fly. You have to be an airplane pilot, a helicopter pilot, something in between and something else entirely. Its a lot to ask.

Japan wants protection but don't want the weapons?

Believe it or not, but Japan is not of one mind. Its not a giant. Its a bunch of different people with different ideas. Some don't want the U.S. military at all. I personally don't know any who does.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The Tokyo government wants "protection" because it has bought the American paranoia and hype, but it wants it as far away as possible.

That's why the bases and the Ospreys are in Okinawa.

They couldn't get much further away if they tried.

It does leave one with the thought though, what does the US get out of this?

Is the US of A protecting poor little defenseless Japan out of the goodness of its good old altruistic floppy hearts? (sound of violins off-stage)

I somehow don't think so.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All these occupy movements around the world to cheer for and yet there is one here in Japan that has been going on for over 60 years that the people of Japan should put an end to. There is strong local opposition in Okinawa and the US military couldn't give a rat's ass. They should station these planes in Tokyo and then see how the central government of Japan responds. On the other hand, maybe Noda and his gang like this highhanded authoritative way since it's how they deal with broad-based opposition to nuclear energy and an increase of the consumption tax.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ospreys seems to be useless because it is easy to fall...

Someone tell me how wonderful a transport plane...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How cool it is to be a 'big brother' isn't it ? Simply ignoring completely the request ( pay with big money per piece ) for the F-22s & deploying a fleet of ospreys to Japan instead that they donot want..and absolutely no say in their decision !?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The navy will probably bring them, that what the Amphibious Ships are for and what they will be used on anyways,

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm not sure why they said they're dis-assembled because all we had to do was fold them up and put the in the boat like so...

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/403821_361024913965689_602687838_n.jpg

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If anyone would care to actually review factual statistic data it is clear that the MV-22 has the lowest loss (crash) rate of any rotor-craft in the Marine Corp over the past 11 years, the aircraft loss rate is fewer than 1 loss per 16,000 flight hours, the H-1's H-46's and H-53's drop like flies in comparison but have been in service so long that it has become a non-issue. The Japanese are grasping at straws in an effort to reduce U.S military presence, if it wasn't the V-22's safety record it would be the noise or the crime that young Marines will commit. The fact that the V-22 is not offered in a civilian version is irrelevant, most military airframes share this trait, many other military transport types aircraft such as the CH-53, H-2, C-5, C-141, C-17, S-3, C-2, and etc have never been offered in a civilian form, mainly due to the fact that the mission they are designed for does not fill a civilian need and that they are cost prohibitive to purchase. The dozen Osprey's are riding a ship to Japan due to costs and available resources, the birds max ferry range is several hundred miles short of being able to make Hawaii from the mainland, the trip would require at least four KC-130J tankers (and crew) to provide in-flight refueling, this would not be at all practical unless the MV-22's were needed in Japan ASAP.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Thank you, JetSpeed. Finally, someone who has something to go off of other than media and speculation. The reason most civilians think of the Osprey as a "death trap" and think it "falls out of the sky" is purely from the media and the politics behind it. No one sits here and talks about how many lives we save in Afghanistan because the aircraft is much more maneuverable and can get out of the danger area before things get too hot.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

JetSpeedJul. 04, 2012 - 11:46PM JST

If anyone would care to actually review factual statistic data it is clear that the MV-22 has the lowest loss (crash) rate of any rotor-craft in the Marine Corp over the past 11 years,

Said it many times before actually, nobody listens... Thanks for the transport info, I had no idea that many air tankers were needed for the 6k mile flight.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

smithinjapanJul. 04, 2012 - 05:17PM JST

You said yourself, they are not commercial/civil versions -- they are military, and at this point still very much experimental in my opinion.

I don't think you happen to have a relevant degree, experiences in civil aviation, or a military pilot/maintenance crew personnel. From all the available research done into it and declassified publications on failures, it is already very much out of experimental stage, hence MV-22 and not the experimental V-22. The MV-22 has had less crashes ever than the CH-53 they are replacing has had in the last ten years(including a Japanese pilot fatality and crash landing inside a university dorm), and even all types combined have had less problems in the first 20 years than the CH-46 did in it's first 20.

Still, they are intended to replace an aging fleet that has seen its own fair share of accidents.

More than fair share, that old fleet has seen many dozens of times more accidents, and much larger accidents than the osprey.

(edited because it was "impolite to user")

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Of the 458 total planned to be built by the Pentagon, 360 are for the U.S. Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force. This Aircraft is the backbone of the U.S. Marine Corps. How could anyone stop it's deployment? I pray the MV-22 Osphrey has a perfect flying record over Japan, and put's an end to the Japanese people's worries.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

basroil, think most of the Helicopters are carried to Japan from the USA on helicopter carriers. The Osprey with ferry tanks has a range of about 2000 miles. The distance from Attu island to Misawa is just a bit over 1700 miles avoiding Russian airspace. My question is why disassemble them instead of having them hich a ride on a LST? Fly them on the ship then directly to Mcas Futenma after the crossing.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Looks kind of small for a hanger deck but the story said "disassembled"

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What a clamor! What a hubbub! I call it little people's whining. Dangerous or not, it's our right to deploy any type of weaponry in Japan, particularly in Okinawa.

That's why the U.S. has deployed the nuclear-powered George Washington at Yokosuka despite Japan's so-called "three non-nuclear principles of not possessing, not introducing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons." Don't you know the U.S. military is guaranteed freedom to do anything in Japanese territory under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty?

Don't pretend to think Japan is a sovereignty. Japan is our colony. It must pay handsomely to support our military presence.

It's outrageous to see so many posters on this thread, many of them American as I assume, take that imperialistic stance and take such suzerain-vassal relations between Japan and the U.S. for granted.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Osprey with ferry tanks has a range of about 2000 miles.

Well its not enough if anything goes wrong and they are in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The craft is simply not designed for trans-pacific travel. It could be pulled off, yes, but only at greater cost, greater use of personnel, greater use of equipment and greater risk. At 69 million dollars a piece, you don't toy around.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtaniJul. 05, 2012 - 01:27AM JST

basroil, think most of the Helicopters are carried to Japan from the USA on helicopter carriers. The Osprey with ferry tanks has a range of about 2000 miles. The distance from Attu island to Misawa is just a bit over 1700 miles avoiding Russian airspace. My question is why disassemble them instead of having them hich a ride on a LST? Fly them on the ship then directly to Mcas Futenma after the crossing.

Yea, I know, just saying it's possible since thunderbird stated it was impossible. Considering how many ships the marines have, they don't need to risk it at all. Likely they will transfer all the MV-22 to Iwakuni first, then fly them out from there. Well within ferry range, and they've done runs like that with less capable craft before. Only about 600 miles, they don't even need the tanks (though they can attach and fuel them just to transport them)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@voiceofokinawa Amen brother Amen!!

You know I'm proud to be an American. I love it when I'm near the flight path of American aircraft. I can hear their engines flying overhead. Those are my people up there. They are here protecting, being vigilant, for everybody's safety.

Then I realize, I'm not a Gaikokujin. I have every right to be here.

This land is your land, this land is my land. From California to Yamanashi. This land was made for you and me.

I hope they have an airshow someday. I really want to see an Osprey.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Opinionhated, to me it shows a lack of faith. Remember much less capable and slower planes have flown the Pacific. Such as the DC-3 flown by United Airlines during the Pacific war. Radial engines and dead reconciling for navigation. These were not "daredevil" flights but routine.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

YuriOtani

My question is why disassemble them instead of having them hich a ride on a LST? Fly them on the ship then directly to Mcas Futenma after the crossing.

Please please stop pretending that you are some kind of expert on US military operations and hardware. Just because you used to work on a base in Okinawa as a civilian/ lived near one and are now married to someone in uniform doesn't mean you know the first thing about these things. You have now suggested that these Ospreys should/could have been transported over in flying condition on a LST. I imagine that would be pretty difficult as LSTs don't have flight decks or hangar bays and, just a minor detail, the US Navy hasn't operated LSTs for several decades. And what in the world is, "dead reconciling?" Did you mean dead reckoning/DR? Really, stick to what you know, whatever that is, or stop coming off like your posts are anything other than personal opinion.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

NetNinja (Jul. 05, 2012 - 08:52AM JST),

I hear an imperialist's voice when I hear you say: "This land is your land, this land is my land. From California to Yamanashi. This land was made for you and me." You always play the buffoon.

The Osprey must not come to Okinawa. But I'm afraid it will anyway despite our strong protestation. Why? Because under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty the U.S. military has every right to use these bases for whatever purpose they may think fit for their military strategy.

So it is the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty that is the root of all evil. The bilateral treaty should therefore be either repealed completely or revised.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

USNinJapan, I can tell you are not a pilot. Today everyone things in terms of Satellite navigation. Before there was even LORAN there was dead reckoning navigation. It is using available information to get your position and plot your course, ie compass and sexton. Got the spelling right this time, think I do well since English is a 3rd language to me. Anyhow I use to wear the uniform of my country, sometime I still get the chance to wear it. Living next to or married to has nothing to do with it. Meet my guy years ago in Arizona. Fate got us back tougher, we did not meet on base in Okinawa. Oh it is LHD, yea :p an LST is an old navy landing craft. It use to land tanks.

My friend, why do you think I never wore an uniform? No I did not work at Tao Bell. Think my mistakes are from being tired. I am very proud to have served my country and in an emergency may serve it again.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

They are probably sending them in pieces to be cost effective. They take up less space in pieces and they can probably carry more on a ship that way. Flying them there wastes money and man power. They need more people to do that. A ship is cheaper using less man power and the ship may be coming to Japan anyway.

Also, they said they couldn't do any flight operations until they get an investigation report. Technically flying them in would be kind of an exercise. So until they get the investigation report, I don't think we will see any of them flying anywhere in Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

YuriOtani

Before there was even LORAN there was dead reckoning navigation. It is using available information to get your position and plot your course, ie compass and sexton.

Thanks, but I know quite well what DR is thank you very much. It's still a basic function along with stellar navigation that we're taught during flight training even in this day and age. DR is still used every day our ship's nav crews as a back-up to GPS course plotting so that we always have a last fix plotted if the system or power should go down at any time.

Got the spelling right this time, think I do well since English is a 3rd language to me.

It wasn't a spelling error Yuri. You said, "dead reconciling." That's no typo, that's a made up word.

My friend, why do you think I never wore an uniform? No I did not work at Tao Bell. Think my mistakes are from being tired.

Why? Because you try very hard to sound like you have first hand/SME knowledge of strategic and military issues when you obviously don't. And now you're chalking up your mistakes, ney misinformation, to being tired? Uh huh. Judging by the frequency of your 'mistakes' you must be tired an awful lot.

I can tell you are not a pilot. That's nice. Just don't tell my bosses because they've got me doing what I do on the assumption that I am...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yuri, I love your posts, I truly do and so don't take this the wrong way, I understand you're tired, but this was priceless:

plot your course, ie compass and sexton

SEXTON: "a person who looks after a church and churchyard, sometimes acting as bell-ringer and formerly as a gravedigger."

I think you mean "sextant." :)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

John apparently spell check is not some people's friend. Funny thing is the the head of my company is named Sexton.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Remember much less capable and slower planes have flown the Pacific. Such as the DC-3 flown by United Airlines during the Pacific war.

Do have any idea what difference a world war makes yuri??? American vessels were crawling all over the Pacific at the time. Such flights would require special mobilizations that would have been simple in war time. And you just totally ignored my point about costs in your post.

It wasn't a spelling error Yuri. You said, "dead reconciling." That's no typo, that's a made up word.

Lighten up. Its a mistake any non-native speaker could easily make. I would like to see you keep up with Yuri in Japanese. At least I knew what Yuri meant to say.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Opinionhated

I would like to see you keep up with Yuri in Japanese.

No problem as I am a native speaker/writer for whom Japanese came before English. However, Yuri's problem isn't one of a lack of language ability, it's just that she doesn't know what she's talking about when she makes statements like those above about the military and passes it off as fact or common knowledge. I deal on a daily basis as part of my job with many of the military plans and assets that are the topics of discussion here and it pains me when people read her posts and think there's any validity to them when they are not much more than badly disguised statements that support her biases, as in this case against the V22 and in a greater scope the deployment of US Forces on Okinawa, particularly Marines at MCAS Futenma.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

USNinJapan2 - we could do with a little less of the veiled sarcasm.

Yuri doesn't want Ospreys in Okinawa or US bases, come to that.

It's a simple matter.

It doesn't require ANY special knowledge.

And on this, I totally agree with her.

We need no Ospreys and no US bases on this peaceful and beautiful island!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Keep in mind these Osprey will be doing humanitarian and tsunami relief missions along with numerous other Pacific operations in place of the CH-46 that is being taken out of service throughout the Marine Corps...The Osprey will get the supplies to it's destination faster and will be an asset to the region that it services.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There are PLENTY of JSDF air and sea craft capable of doing humanitarian and tsunami relief missions IN JAPAN thank you very much.

We don't need Ospreys to help us do this.

It may be an asset to the US military. But it's not to Japan and certainly NOT to Okinawa.

And, please don't bleat about "protection."

We've had enough of that line.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

compass and sexton haha, thank you that made my night.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Takuma my mistake is sort of funny. Lets see one time is accident, twice is coincidence and 3 times is comedy :) Anyhow my thoughts are mine and it is not like the PM goes "Otani sanma what should we do?" My last commander would agree with the majority, I should of been a comodian (sic)... flush in victory! Oh like my father law hate those "thingamajigs" as it makes people lazy and causes accidents.

Anyhow my friends and gentle readers we have to agree to disagree.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

5000 or 50.000 , i don't think it makes a difference, or wall street would have closed a few banks, it just indeed shows that uncle s does as he pleases wherever he wants it. , or wherever they can at least, you'll never see them plant any kind of plane in china or russia ... seems like those are about the only powers they're a little afraid of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, Yuri's problem isn't one of a lack of language ability,

You seem to have a never ending supply of arrogance. You never met Yuri. You don't know this. You assume too much.

she makes statements like those above about the military and passes it off as fact or common knowledge.

Arrogance again! Its a separate issue and you know it. Refusal to admit your arrogance by trying to pass off your statement as something else is just more damned arrogance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Asked why this superfluous U.S. military presence has continued for 67 years since the end of WWII and seems to continue into the indefinite future, with many bases remaining intact or even strengthened by deploying a new type of weaponry such as the Osprey, PAC-3 missile systems and the nuclear-powered George Washington, some posters on this thread answer that all responsibility rests with Japan because it was Japan that started the war, launchng a sneak attack against the U.S.

Some posters such as basroil are bold enough to suggest the Potsdam Declaration guarantees the post-war U.S. military presence in Japan as we see today. True, the Potsdam Declaration called on Japan for unconditional surrender but at the same time it said: "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

Can anyone give any reasons why these U.S. bases, especially the Marines' Futenma training air station and training ranges in central and northern Okinawa, must be sustained indefinitely?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

voiceofokinawa

>Can anyone give any reasons why these U.S. bases, especially the Marines' Futenma training air station and training ranges in central and northern Okinawa, must be sustained indefinitely?

There isn't one. At least not one that the US government and the Japanese government are willing to put out in the open.

When you ask this question, you just get a regurgitation of the PR lines that the military et al. have been fed.

"It's because the Tokyo government requests it."

"Okinawa would be in abject poverty if we left."

"We stand for freedom and democracy in the world."

"Someone has to defend Japan, Japan is not capable of doing it themselves."

"The environment is SO DANGEROUS, with North Korea's rockets poised at Japan and China just waiting for the US cavalry to leave so that they can send in their hordes of yellow peril."

All of which amount to little more than bovine excreta.

I wonder why they can't hand over Futenma and Kadena especially.

I have an idea there is a reason.

Any ideas?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just to add to the last.

There has to be something that the US is getting out of all this.

I can't believe they are doing it out of the goodness of their floppy, sentimental hearts.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

johninnahaJul. 06, 2012 - 06:23PM JST

I wonder why they can't hand over Futenma and Kadena especially.

Because the Okinawans don't want that to happen. The US has many times insisted on new bases outside population centers, yet the people refused to allow it. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

basroil (Jul. 07, 2012 - 02:22AM JST ),

Yours is gangsters' logic. Here's local residents demanding to evacuate the area and they retort, "Yeah, we will do so only if you build a new hideout office building just outside the area." Do local people want "that to happen"?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I wonder why they can't hand over Futenma and Kadena especially.

Because the Okinawans don't want that to happen.

Which Okinawans are you talking about?

There are a sufficiently large number of Okinawans that want the bases off this island to warrant a referendum so that we can REALLY find out.

The US has many times insisted on new bases outside population centers, yet the people refused to allow it.

What on Earth are you talking about?

The Okinawans I know, many of whom attend the anti-base and anti-Osprey demonstrations want the US military off this island.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Okinawans I know, many of whom attend the anti-base and anti-Osprey demonstrations want the US military off this island.

Most of these people and not Okinawans but Japanese flown in to attend the anti-base and get the free beer.

There are a sufficiently large number of Okinawans that want the bases off this island to warrant a referendum so that we can REALLY find out.

5000 is not a lot out of over a more then a 1,000,000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Opinionhated

You seem to have a never ending supply of arrogance. You never met Yuri. You don't know this. You assume too much.

Oh so now we can't assume that everyone's posts doesn't represent the extent of their knowledge on the topic at hand? Her English is fine and she doesn't have problems communicating what she means to say. It's what she's actually claiming that's the problem because it's incorrect.

Do you consider anyone that refutes something you agree with based on fact and experience to be arrogant or wast it my particular choice of words? If you choose to disregard the comments of those who actually know first hand what their talking about that's your problem. But arrogance? Please.

1 ( +1 / -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