politics

Japan refutes U.S. denial about flight by helicopters over school

139 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

139 Comments
Login to comment

Technically both sides are correct, they were "overhead", in the skies of Okinawa, just NOT directly overhead the school.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

Why do they not hasten the relocation of the base to Henoko?

-2 ( +13 / -15 )

The use of this photo is very misleading as it gives the impression that this is the flight in question. But the photo shows 2 UH53s, whereas the article states 2 vipers and a UH1. If he J-DOD released a video you'd think a photo from that would go with this article. In any case USMC needs to move to Henoko and Futenma shut down. Nobody on either side of the fence needs this perpetual nonsense.

2 ( +13 / -11 )

"try to avoid" is the key here....that gives them the excuse to continue...

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Disrespectful. Pure and simple. When you are a guest in someone else's house you don't just do whatever you want. You follow the rules no matter how ridiculous you may think they are.

13 ( +28 / -15 )

Why do they not hasten the relocation of the base to Henoko?

Work is progressing, but everyone has to understand that any move is still YEARS away as the landfill project has been delayed time and time again because of politicians looking for more cash!

And to this below here: don't believe everything you read in the news, especially when it deals with issues about Okinawa and the military, NO helicopters flew directly over the school, nor any part of the school grounds. ZERO

Were they "overhead", sure, but that is inevitable as past idiot politicians built the damn school at the end of a military runway! Again ZERO helicopters flew over the school. This is just more propaganda BS, but it has an ulterior motive for Abe, as he can and will use this to push along the Henoko relocation project.

Disrespectful. Pure and simple. When you are a guest in someone else's house you don't just do whatever you want. You follow the rules no matter how ridiculous you may think they are.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Well if the school is located at the very edge of the runway at the airbase like the Japantoday photo showed in last weeks article, it wouldn’t be technically possible to land any aircraft there without coming dangerously close to the school each time.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Since we can't see the photos or video of the actual overflight (surprise) and all we have is a photo of helicopters flying near the school (that's definitely not 'over' the school), this sounds like the Okinawan city government expanding the definition of what 'over' the school actually means. Sorry, I'm siding with the pilots and radar data.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Last time they flew they accidentally dropped sharp glass or something. US Commanders seem to have gotten lazy or complacent and cant even follow orders properly. Go figure. Did they get too fat and obese?

-2 ( +12 / -14 )

Eviction of US military may be hastened. Suga is not going to make this kind of comment without Abe's approval. Beside that, other Japanese officials talked. Okinawa Prefecture officials and people are not ignored recently.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

this sounds like the Okinawan city government expanding the definition of what 'over' the school actually means.

It's NOT Okinawa City, it's Ginowan City, please READ the articles BEFORE commenting!

The education board of Ginowan, the city where Air Station Futenma is located,

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Is there not an amend ? Why US military did not go to the school to apologise to the student ? If they do nothing to apologise on the ground to the middleschooler , they will do it again.

A strong amend to give back to the school should be put in order.

In diplomacy, we don't ask, we tell.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

It looks like people of Okinawa and U.S. Forces personnel are not doing well. Attitude of U.S. Forces there is arrogant and they still think they are the winners of the war and looks down upon Okinawans. There is no trust among them.

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

And Okinawa continues to get handouts for a job they rail about and in some cases refuse to do.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

It seems that pilots don't care about flying over schools all over towns even if Futenma base were relocated to Henoko. To avoid achools every time seems essentailly pain in ass for pilots as there are so many schools such as elementary. junior, senior schools and kindergardens all over.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If they did fly over that would be at best ill mannered and at worst a display of arrogance. However there seems to be considerable doubt that the aircraft were actually over rather than visible from the school.

If the school was built at the end of an extant and active run way then the idiots responsible should be made to pay for the relocation of the school.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Really, I blame both sides the planners who built the school in an active run way and the military for not warning them not to.

Hope fully the new run way gets built quickly so they can shift the risk and operations away.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Agree close by most likely at an angle.

AH-1 are Cobras same type as recently did an unscheduled landing due to a warning light, UH-1 aka Huey has been around for decades, many civilian owned.

Also Helicopters don't use the runway much as the usually land and take off vertically, , turning radius can also be zero compared to winged planes, hence easy not to overfly anything,

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well I just saw the video and yea, the three birds come down the runway and then veer to port putting them on a path over the school. The eyewitness reports and camera footage pretty much shows they did go over the school so I can the J-DOD position. But the USMC's response is very bewildering.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Technically both sides are correct, they were "overhead", in the skies of Okinawa, just NOT directly overhead the school.

no, they both can't techincally be "correct" unless you believe in alternative facts. the DoD stated that they flew above the school ("The U.S. Marine Corps flew helicopters above an elementary school"), whereas the US military says that they avoided flying over the school ("confirmed using radar tracking data and pilot interviews that no Marine Corps aircraft flew over the school today").

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I feel it is strange that we cannot read opinions written by Okinawans (not those who live in the states today) on this site. Are they reading us?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Objects from a flying chopper drop to the ground slantwise, not directly under it. So flying helicopters are dangerous however they try to avoid flying over the school.

The best solution to get rid of such dangers is to move either Futenma Air Station or Futenma No. 2 Elementary School from the current sites. Some poster suggests Futenma move to Henoko as soon as possible. But this is no solution at all because the culprit is still at large within densely populated Okinawa anyway. 

The best solution ever is to move Futenma Air Station completely outside Okinawa, preferably to a Californian desert.

After all, the Marines have no legal basis to be stationed in Okinawa. Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the U.S. forces that are allowed to stay in Japan (Okinawa) are only the Army, Navy and Air Force, with no mention of the Marines.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

It's NOT Okinawa City, it's Ginowan City, please READ the articles BEFORE commenting!

The education board of Ginowan, the city where Air Station Futenma is located,

Wow, sorry a poorly worded comment made you so angry. Obviously you still know what I meant to say.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Relocate the school.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

voiceofokinawa

You have to realistic - not all or nothing.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

get rid of em! I think its quite clear that nobody wants yankees there... ,Chinese managed to build islands in the sea and put their camps there, why cant yankees do same? that way they can be in the area but we will never see them.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. Download an app for aviation tracking and you'll find that there's a myriad of aircraft above us. Not to mention, the ridiculous amount of satellites orbiting the planet and falling out of the sky. My question is who built what first, the school or the base?

It's a very tactical bureaucratic battle. Building a school next to an airbase? Brilliant idea. Let's build a library just past the runway's end then complain about the noise.  I will never disrespect the men and women in uniform who are also sacrificing their lives for the freedom and peace of this nation.

Japan has problems. They made enemies in the past. Japan is still behind in preparing a military defense to protect it's own sovereignty. It sucks for both sides but your borders require protection. I say "Grin and bear it or put on a uniform and stand duty".

I notice the sound of the jets flying overhead too. But I'm glad he's up there on CAP so I can enjoy my sushi down on the ground in peace.

To the men and women in uniform, I always salute you.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Not sure how big the school is but looks like they are flying next to the school.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

My question is who built what first, the school or the base?

Simple answer, the base was built during the war and expanded afterwards during the Ryukyu Administration Era that lasted until reversion in 1972.

The school was built in the late 60's

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Alex Einz

Chinese managed to build islands in the sea and put their camps there, why cant yankees do same

China is rich, America is not.

China claims to own the islands it is building on. America doesn't own Okinawa.
-5 ( +5 / -10 )

the base was built during the war

The base was obviously buit after the war. There are residents/towns there before the base. The US forcedly took their lands for the base for about 20 years after the war. How US could build the base during the war. There are many schools in Okinawa. Some schools were built before the war and some were built after.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

voiceofokinawa

arent the marines part of the navy, as in department of the navy, as part of theoffice of the navy you know as far as over 200 years?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Any day now, I expect the locals to start retaliating with drone attacks.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If you know anything about the battle here, then you wouldn't be making comments like this which are inaccurate. The land was being used for the base before the war ended with planes flying sorties out of the area, into battle on the south end of the island. Futenma is in the pretty much the middle of the island and that area was secured well before the battle ended.

There were some small hamlets that were taken during and after the war to complete the construction of the base.

Your attempt at misdirection about "schools", nice try, but there is plenty of information about Futenma Dai 2 Elementary school to prove you wrong as well!

The base was obviously buit after the war. There are residents/towns there before the base. The US forcedly took their lands for the base for about 20 years after the war. How US could build the base during the war. There are many schools in Okinawa. Some schools were built before the war and some were built after.

Read and learn; So it WASNT built 20 years later, the school was!

Futenma Airfield was constructed by the US military following the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. According to Ginowan City records, the joint population of what was then Ginowan Village (now Ginowan City) was 12,994 in 1944.[citation needed] It was initially allocated for Eighth Air Force use to station B-29 Superfortress strategic bombers in the planned Invasion of Japan. With the end of the war, the airfield became a United States Air Force Far East Air Force installation known as Futenma Air Base, and was used as a support airfield for the nearby Kadena Air Base, hosting fighter-interceptor squadrons as part of the air defense of the Ryukyu Islands. The base was transferred to the United States Navy on 30 June 1957 and was subsequently developed into a United States Marine Corps air station.[8][9]

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The US military once again showing who is the real boss.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The people of Okinawa were here long before the American bases.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

yubaru

Thanks for information. Your feeling must be still in 1945. It really doesn't matter whether the base was built during the war or not ( to end the war) and it doesn't matter whether the school was built before or after. It is no doubt that US military forcedly took their lands for the military base at that time and had been expanding until the return of 1972. Okinawans did not start the war. You see, the time already has changed. Okinawans were victims of the war and are today victims of the military base. At least US military should not fly over schools very very arrogantly in peace time. Todays Okinawa US military seems like still days in 1945.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

By Order from Mr Trump. Totally ignore ALL REQUEST. We will do whatever we like.

DONALD TRUMP: COMMANDER IN GRIEF or is that chief.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Thanks for information. Your feeling must be still in 1945. It really doesn't matter whether the base was built during the war or not ( to end the war) and it doesn't matter whether the school was built before or after. It is no doubt that US military forcedly took their lands for the military base at that time and had been expanding until the return of 1972. Okinawans did not start the war. You see, the time already has changed. Okinawans were victims of the war and are today victims of the military base. At least US military should not fly over schools very very arrogantly in peace time. Todays Okinawa US military seems like still days in 1945.

You are right, it doesn't matter now, as it is all pretty much ancient history, however, you are using the "history" of Okinawa and the people as the basis of your argument, so from that it is fair to use the history of the US military in Okinawa as well. You can't have it both ways!

And no the base did not continue to expand until 1972 either, it is pretty much the same size since it was built after the war.

no, they both can't techincally be "correct" unless you believe in alternative facts. the DoD stated that they flew above the school ("The U.S. Marine Corps flew helicopters above an elementary school"), whereas the US military says that they avoided flying over the school ("confirmed using radar tracking data and pilot interviews that no Marine Corps aircraft flew over the school today").

First off DOD? Don't you mean Japanese Defense Ministry? Your statement here contradicts itself because there is no DOD here in Japan.

They ARE both definitely "technically correct" it's all about what one's definition of "overhead" is. To the Japanese complaining here, "overhead" does not mean directly overhead, to them pretty much anywhere in the proximity of the school and the grounds, whether "directly" above or not, would be " flying overhead" to them.

On the other hand the US military used their flight data to explain that they didn't fly directly overhead as the Japanese media is reporting.

So both are technically correct in using "overhead", the rest is semantics, but one also has to remember the media and anti-base folks in Okinawa use semantics to push their own agenda's.

So I guess you just don't believe in FACTS.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Disrespectful. Pure and simple. When you are a guest in someone else's house you don't just do whatever you want. You follow the rules no matter how ridiculous you may think they are.

the United States won the right to those bases through a lot of blood sweat and tears in WW2. They are in their own house.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

lol, us has largest military budget in the world... build yourself an island somewhere away from everyone or better yet go back to America, nobody needs or wants your presence anywhere!

6 ( +12 / -6 )

An absolute disgrace.

Time for the US military forces to be shown the door for good.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Suppose a crime syndicate came to town, built a hideout (office) and started telling people in town that they were there to protect the town and the people. The townspeople nevertheless demanded they move out of town immediately. Then a syndicate supporter came out and said, "Who built what first, your school or our office?" 

This metaphor fits the Marine presence in Okinawa very nicely. The land where Futenma Air Station sits was encroached upon freely while area residents were herded in pseudo-POW camps during and after the Battle of Okinawa. Such an act is in sheer violation of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Besides, as I mentioned above, there's an ample reason to question whether the Marines have any legal right to be stationed in Japan (Okinawa) because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the only U.S. forces that can use bases and areas in Japan are the Army, Air Force and Navy.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

It doesn't matter. Some people there (and on this site) just want something to whine about. If the bases ever left, they probably wouldn't know what to do with their free time or where to vent their 'outrage.'

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Besides, as I mentioned above, there's an ample reason to question whether the Marines have any legal right to be stationed in Japan (Okinawa) because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the only U.S. forces that can use bases and areas in Japan are the Army, Air Force and Navy.

As you obviously know, but refuse to acknowledge, for whatever reason, when the treaty was signed there was no Department of the Marine Corp, it was a part of the Department of the Navy and only separated from the Navy decades after the treaty was signed. So there is NO legal question what-so-ever, as neither of the signatories have made any effort nor inquiry into changing the wording.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Mocheake, they would want to complain to the Chinese military, but good luck with that.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Murders, sexual assaults, manslaughters, children at risk and still the henchmen and lackeys whisper in our ears that it's better the devil you know.

No, it isn't. It's time to strike off the shackles of the invader. In a courteous but firm fashion, of course.

Japan will never be truly free until the foreign military forces leave this great country.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Do you know why the marines are there? Because Jgov told them to be there. This impression that, the US military gets to choose what to do without Japanese oversight is absurd. All flight plans are reviewed by a civil air authority a Japanese civil air authority.

The people should be protesting their goverment. They are the only ones who approve where the military gets their bases put at.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

nobody needs or wants your presence anywhere!

Funny how the usual suspects always say that - until NK or China starts their sabre rattling.

Then those same people complain that the US isn’t doing enough to counter the threat.

Every. Time.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Funny how the usual suspects always say that - until NK or China starts their sabre rattling.

Then those same people complain that the US isn’t doing enough to counter the threat.

Every. Time.

Say what? That has never happened.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Yubaru, Today 02:30 pm JST :

There was no Department of Marine Corps then and now. Let me also point out that the Marines are attached to the Department of the Navy even today. But that doesn't mean the Marines are part of the Navy. The Department of the Navy is a statutory office headed by a civilian secretary charged with the administration of the two services. You must be clear about distinguishing between a military organization and an administrative, clerical organization.

As military organizations, the Navy and the Marine Corps are two independent services, each having its own chain of command. The Marine Corps is not subsumed under the arm of the Navy by any means at all.

It's because the two services are independent of each other, each with an independent chain of command, that two Marine generals can participate in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a supreme commanding body of the U.S. Forces, on a par with two Navy admirals. That's the reason why a Marine commander can participate in the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee on a par with a navy commander and discuss matters relevant to the security treaty. If the Marine Corps is subsumed under the arm of the Navy, how could these be possible?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Really?

Their pay stubs say department of the navy. Their personnel files say department of the navy. And you are saying they are not part of the navy because of what again?

Maybe their classification as naval infantry should help you out.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Milkandcookies,

Their pay stubs say department of the navy. Their personnel files say department of the navy.

As I said, an administrative organization and a military organization must be clearly distinguished. Your pay stubs and personal files may say they are issued by the Department of the Navy. But these are administrative matters, never military ones. As military organizations, the two services, the Navy and the Marines, are mutually independent organizations, each with its own chain of command. The U.S. Forces today are composed of 5 distinquished services; the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Say what? That has never happened.

It most certainly has.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

voiceofokinawa

Wait, what?

Im sorry the logic of your post is hard to understand. I had to read a couple of times.

So you are saying that because they have a different management hiarchy they are a complete separate set on their own thus have to create a separate bilateral agreement because of this?

With this logic. Is Okinawa separate from Japan? Is Naha separate from Okinawa?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa

Besides, as I mentioned above, there's an ample reason to question whether the Marines have any legal right to be stationed in Japan (Okinawa) because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the only U.S. forces that can use bases and areas in Japan are the Army, Air Force and Navy.

Nonsense. Your claim that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty doesn't apply to the USMC is ridiculous. Childish really.

Article VI states:

"For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its LAND, AIR and NAVAL FORCES of facilities and areas in Japan..."

The treaty does NOT identify specific branches of the U.S. military as you claim. Applying your nitpicking standard though, the U.S. Marine Corps qualifies as all three of the forces listed in the treaty, land, air, and naval, because it most definitely operates on land, in the air, and at sea. Your argument that a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces isn't covered by the bilateral security treaty is absurd. What's next? Are you going to argue that the U.S. Coast Guard has no business having operations in Japan because they're not named in the treaty? Please.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It most certainly has.

Nope. It most definitely never has.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa

arent the marines part of the navy, as in department of the navy, as part of theoffice of the navy you know as far as over 200 years?

The Marines are a part of the Department of the Navy.

Every Marine recruit should tell their drill instructor how proud they are to have joined the Navy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japanese Abe Government call "Japan-US alliance" but,

Actual state of Japan is mere subordination to US.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

USNinJapan2,

According to the Japanese version of the Security Treaty, which has an equal validity to the English version, the terms "land, air and naval forces" are clearly defined as the "Army, Air Force and Navy". Note that "land, air and naval forces" are terms used in actual combat situations and subject to dismantlement upon the completion of the aim of the said military formations. So if you stick to using these terms in a bilateral treaty, then their presence in a foreign country must be only temporary.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Just relocate the school. To build it close to the runway was not very wise in the first place.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

A helicopter is not over your head if you can see the underbelly... Pulling at straws Japan sorry.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Who am I: Jan. 19 | 06:07 pm JST,

Just relocate the school. To build it close to the runway was not very wise in the first place.

In the same token, I can say repeatedly, "Just close the air station unconditionally. Relocate the facility outside Okinawa, preferably to an inhabited Californian desert. The land the air station sits on was illegally acquired by U.S. forces. The Marines are unwelcome in Okinawa. They have not legal basis to be stationed here after all."

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Today (American Friday), USA people will know if USA government will be closed or not.

Too large military budget is one of two top reasons.

When US military landed in Okinawa, Okinawan people went to welcome US force but US military mistook them as Japanese military. They were killed. Battle continued until Japan surrendered.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

voiceofokinawa

Whoa. I'm absolutely dumbstruck by this profound discovery of yours. Every U.S. Marine in Japan is an illegal alien. Imagine how many issues this could solve. To think that the GoJ has overlooked this for 58 years! Amazing!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Pics or it didn't happen!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East,

Whatis this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not all Americans are Yankees. In southern US states, people call Northern states that were Lincoln side as Yankees. Example. Toyota and Nissan cars sell well in USA because they don't make cars in Yankee States.

So, telling Yankee go home is not working to get rid of American Military Occupation Force.

Back to topic, in mainland Japan, there is Iwakuni Marine base where Both Navy and Marine stationed. Because Japan surrendered while Okinawa was under US fire, all mainland people do not know hardship Okinawans faced under foreign occupation.

The helicopter manufacturers might be selling inferior heli to Military.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There are many weather monitoring helicopters day and night in the sky of Las Vegas and neighboring cities for many years but there is no complaining from schools lot any casinos. Maybe, Military in Okinawa needs to grading pilot training curriculums?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa,

If I were you I would get your money back on what ever Japanese constitutional studies course you're taking.

You're reaching for straws.

Based on that conclusion of your own peculiar interpretation of terms you’re obviously trying to synthesize some bizarre theories.

That’s why the marines will and always been categorized as naval infantry.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@milkandcoookies::

MarinCorps. Base in Quantico Virginia is operated by US Navy, In California, Camp Pendleton in Hubtington Beach is US MC base that US Navy operate.

You are argueing someone who is neither Okinawan nor American.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

just relocate the base.. too close to school , school that belongs to the native population

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In the same token, I can say repeatedly, "Just close the air station unconditionally. Relocate the facility outside Okinawa, preferably to an inhabited Californian desert. The land the air station sits on was illegally acquired by U.S. forces. The Marines are unwelcome in Okinawa. They have not legal basis to be stationed here after all."

Something REALLY funny here in a truly sad way, what about the "rest" of the bases? All the others were acquired in the same or similar manner but you ignorantly focus on Futenma alone? Hmmmm!

Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

You also bring this up and you fail to realize that you open a huge can of worms because you fail to realize that Article 55 gave the US the authority to take and administer the land as well, but those arguments are TOTALLY for a court of law, but NO ONE is challenging or even suggesting that they be brought to the Hague and the Gov here has also researched and attempted to get the Hague to investigate the claims against the bases as being human rights violations but he was rightfully ignored as the same should be for your constant willingness to keep your head in the sand and stay ignorant too!

> Whoa. I'm absolutely dumbstruck by this profound discovery of yours. Every U.S. Marine in Japan is an illegal alien. Imagine how many issues this could solve. To think that the GoJ has overlooked this for 58 years! Amazing!

Damn, no kidding! Then so are the Army, Navy and Air Force too and their families as well because as noted no individual services are included in the treaty either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing simple about flying.  Wind direction and speed must be taken into account when taking off. 

Best to get the Marines relocated as soon as possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a dirty secret people are ignoring: Naha airport (Japanese) controls all airspace and approaches on Okinawa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

California desert? Too expensive if you can find. Californian schools do not teach with Japanese. Lands are owned by private people. And too many fire burning.

Mention somewhere else.

Don't write like you are a Russian who think California is ice field like Russia.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Are you going to argue that the U.S. Coast Guard has no business having operations in Japan because they're not named in the treaty? 

Don't know if you knew this or not but until the middle to early part of the 90's the US Coast Guard had a base here in Okinawa too!

Because of GPS, the base, a LORAN station in Gesashi, on the Pacific coast of Okinawa close to NTA, was a US Coast Guard base, it was turned over to the Japanese Coast Guard,

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All of US military forces are under definition of 'Amerika gun' in Japanese language.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So there is NO legal question what-so-ever, as neither of the signatories have made any effort nor inquiry into changing the wording.

As llong as Japan doesn’t complain about it - Tokyo that is - there isn’t anything illegal about it either. Since the Marines have been here previously under the Navy, they are here under de facto law.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Does this imply some how that the US military is arrogant, indifferent, and insensitive to the plight of others? Shocking idea to contemplate

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yubaru:Today 08:44 pm JST,

You mean to say Article 55 of the Convention respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land guarantees the U.S. forces to have been able acquire private property with impunity in the occupied country? So the U.S. forces' unrestrained encroachment upon private property in Okinawa was legal? Read Article 55 carefully and you will find it's only describing the case of public property, not private property.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Under Japanese definition of Amerika Gun, coast guard sent to Japan belongs to US military forces in Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@aoi: There is no state of Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Those are CH-53’s in the photo, not AH-1’s or UH-1.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

USA government is in financial crisis. But it will not send military forces back, Annual payment to let US force staying Japan is huge. Military cannot afford to lose these payments. Until Japanese gov't decides to evict them, Okinawan people are stuck with them. The contractors that maintain base upkeep are usually Americans who. hardly employ Okinawans.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You mean to say Article 55 of the Convention respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land guarantees the U.S. forces to have been able acquire private property with impunity in the occupied country? So the U.S. forces' unrestrained encroachment upon private property in Okinawa was legal? Read Article 55 carefully and you will find it's only describing the case of public property, not private property.

Ahh, thank you! Previous to, and during WWII ALL property and land in Japan, including Okinawa (Ryukyu's) was "public" land as it was considered to be all under the authority of the Emperor of Japan, so in effect it was all his, and all public. SO, the US occupied IMPERIAL/Japanese land and NOT private land.

Hence there being NO argument, or discussion regarding the appropriation thereof in the Hague.

Your argument is moot, therefore , all the rest of what you wrote is bogus as well, because you base it all upon this one false premise, which I have shown you to be wrong.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Maybe Japanese gov't is planning to evict American soldiers? Too much mooney Japan have to pay to keep. them in Jappan.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@voiceofokinawaJan. 19 06:06 pm JST

According to the Japanese version of the Security Treaty, which has an equal validity to the English version, the terms "land, air and naval forces" are clearly defined as the "Army, Air Force and Navy". Note that "land, air and naval forces" are terms used in actual combat situations and subject to dismantlement upon the completion of the aim of the said military formations. So if you stick to using these terms in a bilateral treaty, then their presence in a foreign country must be only temporary.

The Japanese version said "陸軍、空軍及び海軍". 陸軍 for example is usually mapped to "Army", but its component glyphs are literally Land(陸)+Force(軍). So it is literally "Land Force, Air Force and Sea Force".

@YubaruJan. 19 11:29 pm JST

Ahh, thank you! Previous to, and during WWII ALL property and land in Japan, including Okinawa (Ryukyu's) was "public" land as it was considered to be all under the authority of the Emperor of Japan, so in effect it was all his, and all public. SO, the US occupied IMPERIAL/Japanese land and NOT private land.

Frankly, this seems a weak throw. First, the concept of ownership by subjects exists even in the Meiji Constitution under Article 27, and it is in principle inviolable by the State, thus marking it apart by public property. Further, in substantive terms, they are private property.

Are you seriously advocating that all citizens of Country A should have fewer rights under the Hague Convention than all citizens of Country B on the basis of abstract legal theories on the source of legal power?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

The Japanese version said "陸軍、空軍及び海軍". 陸軍 for example is usually mapped to "Army", but its component glyphs are literally Land(陸)+Force(軍). So it is literally "Land Force, Air Force and Sea Force".

Thank you so much for clarifying this for voiceofokinawa. He's been very confused, but I'm sure this will not convince him either.

As for the video, the only versions I could find online were heavily edited, zooming in when the aircraft began to make their turn away from the camera, and only the corners of the (presumed) school structures were visible, making it is impossible to tell from these highly suspect videos where the helicopters actually flew.

I thought I was about to eat some crow when I read the video had been released, I thought we would be shown some incontrovertible evidence, but this video is not the smoking gun Okinawa is claiming. Calling it a weak argument is an understatement. I'm just not buying it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lucky for US military because Okinawan children do not carry smart phones to take photos and video. Otherwise, military officials will be on Japanese and US media screens. Accusations of theirnegligennce will follow.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Lucky for US military because Okinawan children do not carry smart phones to take photos and video. Otherwise, military officials will be on Japanese and US media screens. Accusations of theirnegligennce will follow.

Except that there is video, yet it shows nothing but the corner of a building and the helicopters turning away from it.

If actual unedited footage of the aircraft flying directly over the school is presented, I will be the first one to say the Marines screwed up. Until then, Okinawa is not looking good.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Are you seriously advocating that all citizens of Country A should have fewer rights under the Hague Convention than all citizens of Country B on the basis of abstract legal theories on the source of legal power?

No, not at it, it's absurd, even to me, just as is the opinion that the Hague convention can be used as an argument against the US bases in Japan today.

I thought I was about to eat some crow when I read the video had been released, I thought we would be shown some incontrovertible evidence, but this video is not the smoking gun Okinawa is claiming. Calling it a weak argument is an understatement. I'm just not buying it.

It aint the first time, just like suddenly "finding" creatures and all sorts of stuff in Henoko too, after centuries of nothing. Happens all the time, Okinawa version of "Alternative Facts" aka lies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Your argument is ridiculously far-fetched.  If you think as you do, then in the same vein one can say that all the land in the U.S, regardless of public or private, is the U.S. government's property. The fact that you have to pay federal taxes imposed on "privately-owned property" attests this.

Kazuaki Shimazaki,

Ambiguity exists in other parts of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. The term “Far East” is the case in point. This term is translated as 極東 or “extreme East” in Japanese, and according to an official interpretation covers an area that includes Japan and its vicinity, probably the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan at the best. So if you stick to this interpretation the USFJ can’t engage in a war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in fact they have done in blatant violation of the bilateral agreement.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

are these the geniuses that put a school at the end of the runway, then were surprised the runway would be used on a base?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Every Marine recruit should tell their drill instructor how proud they are to have joined the Navy.

One thing possibly only a former Marine would understand and have a good laugh with! Thank you!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Your argument is ridiculously far-fetched.

Pot-kettle-black syndrome is invading JT once again! At least I don't actually believe the ludicrous things that I posted, as in my response to Kazuaki, which you obviously didn't read.

My argument is no more far-fetched than your statements about the military, MC, Hague convention, and just about everything else. You are quite gullible and naive if you actually believe what you are writing here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@voiceofokinawa

Ambiguity exists in other parts of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. The term “Far East” is the case in point. This term is translated as 極東 or “extreme East” in Japanese,

Maybe so, but who gets to define what the ambiguities mean? You? I think not.

Right here you insist that the correct use is the literal Japanese translation of Far East as Extreme East, so that you can twist it to fit your narrative that the US is violating the agreement by training for missions outside your 'Extreme East'.

Yet when Kasuaki shows you the literal translations of Army, Air Force and Navy as land forces, air forces and sea forces that could easily explain the acceptance of the Marine presence, you just wave your hand and call it an ambiguity that should just be ignored.

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And Okinawa continues to get handouts for a job they rail about and in some cases refuse to do.

Yes more diligence is needed to ensure helicopters avoid this area.

Everyone, including the media, seems to be missing the point about Okinawa. Here is a good explanation

http://apjjf.org/2017/11/Norimatsu.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yubaru: Today 07:55 am JST,

Pot-kettle-black syndrome is invading JT once again! At least I don't actually believe the ludicrous things that I posted, as in my response to Kazuaki, which you obviously didn't read.

So you side with me in that the land where Futenma sits was requisitioned by U.S. forces in violation of Article 46 of the said Convention?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

extanker: Today 08:02 am JST,

The terms 陸軍, 海軍, 空軍in the Japanese version of the Security Treaty correspond to the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force. They don't literally mean "Land Force", "Sea Force" and "Air Force" as Kazuaki Shimazaki suggests by analyzing their morphological components.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So you side with me in that the land where Futenma sits was requisitioned by U.S. forces in violation of Article 46 of the said Convention?

I see reading comprehension is not a strong suit in you!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East,

Anyone who have been watching news or learned a contemporary history might find this comment to be quite laughable.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

About one hour later, US gov't will be shut down Senate does not have enough vote to agree with Congress plan. US military men in Japan and S Korea don't have to worry. US. gov't do not pay their pay. Money host country pay take care of them. All Federal employees will be without income for quite while. Another words USA is broke.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yubaru: Today / 11:50 am JST,

If you say Futenma doesn't sit on the land that was illegally confiscated by U.S. forces, naturally you have to  explain why you think the U.S. forces’ illegal action was legal at the time, that is, the land requisition in violation of international law that continued long after the war.

Your justification for saying it was legal was that in pre-war Japan all the land belonged to the Emperor and so the land Futenma sits on was not private but public. Now you say that was a joke and deny outright what you said. 

So how do you explain that land requisition was legal at all?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Whenever US Troops repeat trouble,

Supporters of Abe Government spread Hate,Discrimination and False rumor against Okinawa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

voice your theories are wrong, that's all their is their aint no more.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yubaru,

your theories are wrong, that's all their is their aint no more.

That's not a reasonable explanation as to why the land requisition was legal. You must explain specifically why I am wrong. Or are you suggesting you gave up?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

choiceofokinawa

If the MLIT says it's legal.then there's a pretty good why it legal.

Maybe your fight is with them notbthe local military who don't have any saying where they want to be based at.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

US government is closed operation. These helicopters may become 'for sales to Japan.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I've said on many occasions that it is time Japan reclaimed its sovereignty. Japan is still under occupation by the US and will continue to be so until the people demand that their government represents them rather than their US masters. When will Japan demand that the US vacate Japanese shores? Part of the problem is that Japan has an PM that is a lapdog to Washington. Abe even wants to follow Trump into war with NK. Someone in these comments said "America doesn't own Okinawa", no it still owns Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

rlperez: "Japan is still under occupation by the US"

Hogwash.

"When will Japan demand that the US vacate Japanese shores?"

When they're hiking up the Chinese flag.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

toshiko: "Lucky for US military because Okinawan children do not carry smart phones to take photos and video."

I'd say lucky for the Japanese officials. Since there's no proof that the US was there, the Japanese can keep claiming they were to fit their agenda. They can have people like you saying "Imagine if they had cameras!" when if they did, which I'm sure you're thankful they did not, there'd be proof you're wrong and not just buying into the paranoia of the politicians there.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

smithinjapan:

The Ministry of Defense installed 4 cameras at the school after the incident with the helicopter window falling on the school ground so they do have video footage showing that the U.S. Marine helicopters were there. The Ministry of Defense would never file a protest with the U.S. Military and use the words that they have used if they didn't have proof and it is the Ministry of Defense not the local Okinawa Govt.  saying that the U.S. Marines violated the agreement that they made.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If the majority of Okinawans want US bases off their island, the USA can either shut down all its bases in Japan or transfer them to another island. Japan is an industrial nation. It has advanced technology, builds automobiles, electronics, appliances, watches, clocks and appliances. It still has an outdated military that's even less advanced than Developing Nations' military. Japan should become a superpower and turn the US bases there into Japanese bases.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It still has an outdated military that's even less advanced than Developing Nations' military. Japan should become a superpower and turn the US bases there into Japanese bases.

Huh? "Outdated" It's obvious you have zero idea of what you are talking about. The JSDF is one of the MOST advanced and well equipped "military" in the world! You should look it up!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You must explain specifically why I am wrong. 

No I don't, you definitely ain't my mother and she is the only person on this planet that can tell me what I "must" do! Oh she died about 10 years ago, so figure that one out.

Your theories are wrong, it's that simple. One would think that even if you were 1/10 of 1% close to anything it would have been tried, but it hasn't, and believe me Japanese politicians here in Okinawa are a hell of a lot smarter than you.....give them credit for! So, all your theories and ideas are for discussing "what if" nothing more, nothing less!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Let me clarify my position for you to answer the question succinctly.

There're three questions I raised on this thread:

(1) Can the Marines be considered the navy? (2) The land where Futenma sits was requisitioned while area residents were herded in camps. Isn't such action by U.S. forces illegal in light of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land ?

 (3) Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates the U.S. is allowed to use bases and areas in Japan by its Army, Air Force and Navy (Japanese version) for the defense and security of Japan and the Far East. If so, why did the U.S. use these bases and areas for wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq? In other words, didn't the U.S. stretch the meaning of the terms "Far East", which is officially interpreted in Japan to be the area covering Japan and its vicinity?

Of these three questions, we (you and I) are concerned here only with (2): Wasn't it illegal to confiscate private property under international law?. But you insist it wasn't illegal at all. If you insist as you do, then it's your obligation to prove it wasn't illegal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

here're three questions I raised on this thread:

You can find answers to your questions on google, your arguments are purely academic, nothing more, nothing less.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yubaru,

I'm asking you why you think the land confiscation was legal. Answer it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa

I can answer you questions!

But first you need reframe them, you need to make sure they are:

succint

concrete

Logical

You need to make sure they are not:

Akward

Loaded

Biaesed

You should understand your audience too. Asking questions that are meant for strategic planners really probably shows your lack of judgement.

Further more If you ask more politely rather than demand answers from people who owe you nothing, is probably the best way to get responses.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Milkandcokies,

I think we're all amateurs here about law, but even so we can assert the confiscation of private properties by an occupying army violates Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which states:

"Family honour 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 please refute my argument by presenting your proof that the land confiscation in Okinawa in 1945 and beyond didn't violate international law.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Forceful land confiscation was not particular to Futenma Air Station only but it occurred in Kadena Air Base, Iejima Auxiliary Air Field and so forth. On Iejma, in the 1950s, the U.S. force bulldozed farms and burned houses before protesting farmers to expand the base, which occupies 35% of the island's area today.

It is these memories that revive in our mind whenever someone tries to justify the existence of U.S. bases here.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sounds like not all the info is being given in this article. The base was there first and then the school was built near the end of run way. The picture also does not match the statements made by JT, so the real story here is the excuses to push the base away. Yes if a piece of the aircraft fell off then yes that is a safety issue and should be investigated if it has not already been completed. As far as the USA being there, that's up to both governments to sort it out. If Japan is more the abile to defend itself, then reduce the number of bases in Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As far as the comment how can the marines be there when treaty only says Navy, Air Force and Army. That's because the Marines fall under the Department of the Navy. Marines hate that part when u tell them that, we used to Joke with them when i was stationed at Yokosuka Naval station lol.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa,

You can assert whatever you want, doesn’t make true.

No no no... it’s someones else’s turn to ask loaded rhetorical questions.

Since you like to loosely throw heated terms like “occupation”, “land confiscation”.

What is the qualifications and characteristics of an “occupying army”, and “land confiscation”.

When does LoW actually apply?

What qualifies it to be applied?

Who exactly makes the policy in Japan, is it the Americans or the Japanese?

Who gets to decide where the bases stay at, the Americans or the Japanese?

I suspect you already know the answers to these questions. This is your attempt to show spite to another culture.

Make sure you get proper references when you answer back.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Milkandcookies,

Are you denying all the fact that there was no occupation of Okinawa by U.S forces, that land confiscation didn't take place during the period that lasted from 1945 to 1972, that the occupying army encroached upon private land with impunity to build an air base while residents were herded in camps like POWs, that such action by an occupying army violates international law and that the U.S. forces at the time acted as they were permitted by the Japanese government?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

voice,

Are you denying that the U.S military forces being in Japan does not create a notable deterrence against unpredictable world actors surrounding Japan wishing to disrupt their way of life?

Are you denying that the American Armed forces being in Japan does not create a competitive advantage that shifts the budget from defense spending to other social welfare services and infrastructure?

Do you deny the young people, whether they want to or not are sacrificing their own lives and freedoms so that the Japanese don’t have to?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

*Do you deny the young people, whether they want to or not are sacrificing their own lives and freedoms so that the Japanese don’t have to?*

No US service personnel are 'sacrificing their own lives' for Japan. A good number of Okinawa people have lost their lives/safety as a direct result of the actions of US service personnel - drunk drivers, rapists, murderers. How many times have alcohol bans/curfews been imposed following an 'incident'? How many US lives have been lost 'defending' Japan?

No US service personnel are 'sacrificing their freedoms' for Japan. They sign up of their own free will, in exchange for a salary, to get an education they couldn't otherwise afford to pay for, to expedite naturalisation, maybe even to serve their country. Not to serve Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I deny ÿour whole pseudo-heroic rhetoric. "Milkandcookies". This is their job, they are doing it badly, and Japan is arming itself.

After you think of it, they are just wasting taxpayers money and contributing to Okinawa's crime, since Japan is heading back unto the warmongering course...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa,

You can assert whatever you want, doesn’t make true.

No no no... it’s someones else’s turn to ask loaded rhetorical questions.

Since you like to loosely throw heated terms like “occupation”, “land confiscation”.

What is the qualifications and characteristics of an “occupying army”, and “land confiscation”.

When does LoW actually apply?

What qualifies it to be applied?

Who exactly makes the policy in Japan, is it the Americans or the Japanese?

Who gets to decide where the bases stay at, the Americans or the Japanese?

I suspect you already know the answers to these questions. This is your attempt to show spite to another culture.

Make sure you get proper references when you answer back.

@milkandcookies,

I and many others have already answered these questions and more for him but unless you agree with his twisted world perspective, then he will just tell you that you are wrong.

Something else people complaining about the crime rates like to ignore is the astronomically higher crime rates of locals versus military personnel, but why bother with truth when it doesn't fit your narrative right? Scroll down to 'SOFA Crime Rate vs. Overall Okinawa Crime Rate' to see that maybe the Okinawans are throwing stones in their glass house.

http://nihon.awardspace.com/okinawa_sofa_crime.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Milkandcookies Jan. 22 10:27 pm JST,

Are you denying that the American Armed forces being in Japan does not create a competitive advantage that shifts the budget from defense spending to other social welfare services and infrastructure?

You're drifting away from the subject. If I acknowledge what you say is true, does it justify the land confiscation we've been discussing on this thread, that is, that the occupying U.S. forces requisitioned private property in violation of international law?

And remember that we are discussing the Futenma issue here. We, Okinawa people, are demanding it be closed and the land returned unconditionally. Isn't that a heaven-sent offer also for the Futenma-based "young people" who you say "are sacrificing their lives" by serving in a remote place separated from their families in the U.S.?

Futenma is a Marine base. Give your reason why its function must be maintained in Okinawa when active elements of them are to move to Guam.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

David,

Yeah, I don’t buy my own stuff either. These people should be held to a higher standard and I feel no pity when there is a lapse of judgement. Saying that, these pilots are highly trained highly intelligent with some over decades of flight experience. You do not get to live that long as a military pilot by making mistakes.

I’m just employing the same weasel tactics that the other person was using for his argument, but now, I’m thinking this person was not using tactics, this person has an incoherent thought process.

I don’t think your correct about where your tax money is going. The budget shows about 5 -6 percent of the GDP in defense spending which is pathetically the same for education. More of the budget is spent in local allocation given to prefectures that cannot raise the tax revenue for their own local administrative social services. .

We’ll know what happened when the radar vector data is released, and the flight data computer is inspected. When you put in all the data in to the computer, you can virtually create the aircraft’s flightpath to include heading, bank angle and elevation.

Cleo, 

I don’t agree with you. It’s not that the Americans are holier than thou. It’s just that you would have to look at the crime data and try to get a correlation of crime and military, and pinpoint if there is a large criminal activity with the general population.

The media is doing a decent job in showing only bad sides of the military. Because that’s what sells.

Your argument can turn into a slippery slope. You need to be careful how you use it. You can change the noun from American with oh I don’t know… Immigrant, tourist, foreigner? And still get the same argument.

Extanker,

I learned my lesson.

I don’t know what this person’s agenda is, but it’s not for the sake of the Japanese people of Okinawa, and noticing the awkward erratic style writing I’m guessing this is a very unstable person and would probably suggest avoiding all engagement.

 There is a substitute to all this. First off, people should be made aware that it’s the Japanese government that says where the Americans stay and for how long.

The Americans have no say when it comes to policy. They can protest, they can throw money, but ultimately ultimately, it’s the Japanese who make the decisions. 

If you really want to reduce the presence of the bases you going to have to vote the LDP out of the supremacy. That would be step one. But, all this too common sense, it’s easier just to antagonize the Americans.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Milkandcookies,

I asked poster Yubaru this question in my post dated Jan. 21 | 10:57 pm UTC:

The land where Futenma sits was requisitioned while area residents were herded in camps like POWs. Isn't such action by U.S. forces illegal in light of Article 46 of the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land ?

He couldn't answer the question and kept mum about it. Then you entered the stage and tried to answer for him. I also asked you to give your reason why Futenma's function must be maintained in Okinawa when active elements of them are slated to move to Guam.

Rather than touching on the question I raised, you're simply insinuating in the post addressed to Extanker that I am a very unstable person judging from my "awkward erratic style writing."  Is this your parting shot? Answer the questions directly.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I don’t agree with you. It’s not that the Americans are holier than thou. It’s just that you would have to look at the crime data and try to get a correlation of crime and military, and pinpoint if there is a large criminal activity with the general population.

No, you would not. When the claim (your claim) is that *the young people, whether they want to or not are sacrificing their own lives and freedoms so that the Japanese don’t have to, all it needs is to show that in fact the 'young people' are obviously not sacrificing their lives and freedoms for the sake of Japan. No one joins the US military with dreams of 'protecting Japan'. If they do, they're delusional and probably not fit to serve and the US is doing no one any favours sending them over here. If the crime data show any* instances (and there are plenty) of these 'young people' acting to the direct detriment of the people you claim they are sacrificing themselves for, then your claim falls to pieces.

You can change the noun from American with oh I don’t know… Immigrant, tourist, foreigner? And still get the same argument.

Only if your claim is that those immigrants/tourists/foreigners are in Japan sacrificing themselves to save Japanese people and so the locals should just suck it up. Ludicrous argument, isn't it?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, you would not. When the claim (your claim) is that the young people, whether they want to or not are sacrificing their own lives and freedoms so that the Japanese don’t have to, all it needs is to show that in fact the 'young people' are obviously not sacrificing their lives and freedoms for the sake of Japan. No one joins the US military with dreams of 'protecting Japan'. If they do, they're delusional and probably not fit to serve and the US is doing no one any favours sending them over here.*

Then you obviously have no understanding of why a lot of young people join the US military, or the military in general. Sure, a lot of people sign up to go to college. But the majority of them sign up not knowing where they'll be sent or what they might end up having to do, up to and including sacrificing their life. Many do dream of protecting anyone, anywhere, who might need it. They are most definitely volunteering to sacrifice their freedoms. I guess in your narrow world perspective, your definition of sacrifice might be a little different than someone who would be willing to do that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

*you obviously have no understanding of why a lot of young people join the US military, or *the military in general

Yup.

the majority of them sign up not knowing where they'll be sent or what they might end up having to do, up to and including sacrificing their life

How many of them have 'sacrificed their lives' protecting Japan? That was your claim.

They are most definitely volunteering to sacrifice their freedoms

In return for whatever perks (college education, green card, salary) they think make it worthwhile. It's not a draft, they are not forced to sign up. They are not sacrificing their freedoms for the purpose of protecting Japanese people. As you point out, they have no idea where they'll be sent; dodging bullets or worse in the Middle East, or on a cushy number on a tropical island. A posting to Okinawa is no sacrifice.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Here's an episode about how land was requistioned in the 1950s. The incident ocurred on Iejima, an offshore island about 9 Km off from the main island of Okinawa. 

On March 11, 1955, the U.S. military landed 300 armed soldiers on Iejima and ordered 13 families to be evicted from their house to expand the already-existing base which occupied 65% of the Island's mass at the time. Despite the families and islanders' fierce resistance, a corps of army engineers (or was it CBs?) burned the houses and bulldozed them all. They forcefully arrested one scuffle-injured old protester, shouting, "We shed our blood to take this island from the Japanese army and so you must be evicted from here no matter what. You people have no right to say anything!" (Source: U.S. Forces and Farmers by Shoko Ahagon, Iwanami Publishing Co. (1973))

I notice this victor complex still beating with some posters here.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How many of them have 'sacrificed their lives' protecting Japan? That was your claim.

First of all, I never said any such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said a soldier volunteers to possibly sacrifice their life, I did not say where, why or when.

In return for whatever perks (college education, green card, salary) they think make it worthwhile. It's not a draft, they are not forced to sign up. They are not sacrificing their freedoms for the purpose of protecting Japanese people. As you point out, they have no idea where they'll be sent; dodging bullets or worse in the Middle East, or on a cushy number on a tropical island. A posting to Okinawa is no sacrifice.

I hate to break it to you, but being forced to give up something isn't really a sacrifice. Volunteering to do it is. Being compensated for it (kind of poorly, if you knew anything about the military) doesn't make it any less of a sacrifice. Do you really think that not having a clue if you'll be sent to war in the Middle East or to relax in the Pacific makes volunteering less of a sacrifice or more?

Tell you what, if you job called you up tonight and said to you 'Cleo, tomorrow, you're going to be sent to some other office, somewhere else far away from your home and children, that you never planned on going to or even knew existed'. Would you go to work? I didn't think so. A soldier faces that every day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese trainer jets fly low over Kitakyushu all the time. I do not see the problem.

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