politics

Biden unlikely to alter U.S. base transfer plan in Okinawa: locals

74 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

74 Comments
Login to comment

Most Okinawa residents oppose the planned transfer of the U.S. Marine Corp Air Station Futenma, located in a residential area of Ginowan, to the less populated coastal area of Henoko in Nago.

Once again, misleading information being passed off as fact!

Support 114,933 19.10%

Oppose 434,273 72.15%

No opinion either way 52,682 8.75%

Total votes 605,385

Registered voters and turnout 1,153,591 52.48%

Anyone can do the math, and for whatever reason, apathy being the biggest, half the population of eligible voters did not vote.

Like it or not , making the argument that MOST oppose it is ingenious, when facts do not back it up!

(Link is in English)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Okinawan_referendum

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Yamashiro said Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government should cooperate with Biden's administration in achieving peace and stability in the region so U.S. military bases will no longer be necessary in Okinawa.

Altruistic view, and honorable, but naïve as well.

Reality totally different, and even if a day comes that there are no US bases, you can rest assured that there will be Japanese bases here, and without the US, in far greater numbers than already here now!

Okinawa residents worry that they could be a target of missiles in a possible military confrontation between Washington and Beijing.

Somebody went on a fishing expedition to find someone to make this comment here. I dislike the over generalizations that writers make in stating what people are "worried" about!

This is an assumption and not backed by any reliable information, pure hearsay!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

He's kinda busy right now with his own country yo

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And so he shouldn’t.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about Okinawa goes independent from Japan and lease their land charging U.S. Forces. Then, U.S. Forces will withdraw from Okinawa soon. U.S. Forces will not stay there with their own money. Democratic government will become soft to China under Biden and Rice who is rumored to become the secretary of state.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The people of Okinawa should know by now that the problem is not D.C., it's Tokyo.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What about Okinawa goes independent from Japan

Have you ever actually BEEN to Okinawa? Let me guess, no!

You obviously do not realize that even the anti-base coalition have no desire to become independent. No one, with the exception of posters here, and some serious fringe-nuts, even contemplate the idea.

Get this idea out of your head, never happen!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The people of Okinawa should know by now that the problem is not D.C., it's Tokyo.

They know, but the politicians here like to us D.C. as it's scapegoat. All the anti-base people scream bloody murder about the bases, all along holding their hands out to Tokyo for more money.

Hypocritical, of course, but then, it's Okinawa's way of doing business!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This is the very difficult issue to solve. But I hope Japan government persuade Okinawa residents the importance of defence from totalitarian countries nearby.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Given what he's got on his plate, I'd imagine that sort of decision might be delegated to the military or State dept...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. Forces Okinawa used their bases in Okinawa freely to send their troops to Vietnam and Cambodia that had nothing to do with defending Japan from foreign invasions. The Japanese government tolerated it despite it was not in accordance with the security treaty. In the meantime, when Japan was troubled recently by the aggressive actions of China at Senkaku, Obama and the Democratic government of U.S. said to Japan they will not take side to any territorial claims assuming a nonchalant air. Japan is a sucker.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Yubaru (Today 07:08 am JST),

In the 2019 referrendum, votes opposing the Henoko relocation accounted for 72.15% of the total 605,385 votes as against 19.10% supporting it. You want to say that since the turnout was low, these figures don't reflect the reality. Your math must tell the number opposing the relocation is 37.6%, never 72.15%.

A Kyodo Press poll conducted just before the referendum had predicted the percentage of opposition would be 67.6%. How many do you think Kyodo Press polltakers contacted eligible voters by telephone? No more than 1,000, I believe. The 72.15% figure far exceeded the predicted statistical figure of 67.6%.

It's safe to say then the majority of Okinawans are opposed to the Henoko relocation plan. The plan must be scrapped, and USMC Air Station Futenma must be closed and returned immediately with no string attached.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Okinawa should claim independence and become a country similar to Taiwan.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

vanityofvanitiesToday  09:57 am JST

when Japan was troubled recently by the aggressive actions of China at Senkaku, Obama and the Democratic government of U.S. said to Japan they will not take side to any territorial claims assuming a nonchalant air. Japan is a sucker.

Please stop repeatedly posting this information.

"The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and the Islands Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty stipulates that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes."

During the Obama Administration 2 Secretaries of State and 2 Secretaries of Defense and President Obama himself declared that any attempt by China to take the Senkakus would invoke Article 5 above.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42761.pdf

9 ( +9 / -0 )

If Tokyo keeps treating Okinawa not as an integral part of Japan but a dustbin to throw every nuisance derived from U.S. bases into it, then we will think about it as a last resort.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Can we trust the democrat's government? We felt they were unfriendly to Japan. They were more concerned with China as a trade partner and did not want to hurt relationship with China at that time. Did the message reach to China? China is still provoking.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

During the Obama Administration 2 Secretaries of State and 2 Secretaries of Defense and President Obama himself declared that any attempt by China to take the Senkakus would invoke Article 5 above.

If anybody thinks the US would go to (possibly nuclear) war with China over a rock, are truly crazy.

I am pretty sure the US would not go to war with China even over Taiwan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Goodlucktoyou,

Okinawa should claim independence and become a country similar to Taiwan.

If Tokyo keeps treating Okinawa not as an integral part of Japan but a lost article, a dustbin, to throw every nuisance derived from U.S. bases into it, then we will think about it as a last resort.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Okinawa belongs to China? Let them have it. After all the Ryukyu Kingdom was a Chinese vassal state and not really independent. Everyone knows China will treat the Okinawans more gently than the Americans. Their military personnel will never leave base to disturb native sensibilities and their aircraft fly noiselessly and never ever crash.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yubaru: "Like it or not , making the argument that MOST oppose it is ingenious, when facts do not back it up!"

Spot on, once again.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 You want to say that since the turnout was low, these figures don't reflect the reality. Your math must tell the number opposing the relocation is 37.6%, never 72.15%.

Not my math, the facts! Only 52% or so turned out, not my numbers, fact!

You cant accept the FACT! The reality is that the majority of Okinawa doesnt care! You can cry all you want, and lie all you want, but my link proves my point.

Yours is just talk, no proof to back it up!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

then we will think about it as a last resort.

"We?" Lol! Even you know better.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What about Okinawa goes independent from Japan and lease their land charging U.S. Forces. Then, U.S. Forces will withdraw from Okinawa soon. U.S. Forces will not stay there with their own money.

The bases the US forces used would then quickly be occupied by Chinese forces. That’s be much better for the people in Okinawa.

Democratic government will become soft to China under Biden and Rice who is rumored to become the secretary of state.

Evidence?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's safe to say then the majority of Okinawans are opposed to the Henoko relocation plan. The plan must be scrapped, and USMC Air Station Futenma must be closed and returned immediately with no string attached.

What are the consequences if your demands aren’t met?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Yubaru,

Im ignorant of the present Oki situation but a few years ago, there was an independent Okinawa movement, with a website. Not sure how much momentum it had.

What do Okinawa folks want? Less of Tokyo, more US bases? More protection from China?

I know they have a long history as a tributary of China and you could see the Chinese influence in their culture. I was stationed there many moons ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people of Okinawa deserve respect and gratitude for sacrificing their quality of life in order to host massive U.S. Military Bases that not only defend Japan but defend the Philippines, Taiwan and other countries in the area but all they get is disrespect and snide remarks like give them to China. And for all of you people who say that the people of Okinawa always have their hands out begging to the Japanese Govt., the people of Okinawa deserve a lot more than what they get from the Japanese Govt. and for Okinawa to have a very large portion of its prime land taken up by U.S. Military Bases but yet is among the poorest prefectures in Japan is a disgrace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okinawa belongs to China? Let them have it. After all the Ryukyu Kingdom was a Chinese vassal state and not really independent. Everyone knows China will treat the Okinawans more gently than the Americans. Their military personnel will never leave base to disturb native sensibilities and their aircraft fly noiselessly and never ever crash.

interesting take, being they were once connected to China Tokyo would never allow China that to happen, thats too close. I dont know any Oki people, have no idea about their politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Im ignorant of the present Oki situation but a few years ago, there was an independent Okinawa movement, with a website. Not sure how much momentum it had.

It wasnt a movement, it wasnt, and isnt anything.

Okinawa is for the most part satisfied with the status-quo, so long as the military minds it manners and does not cause problems in the local communities. Something that has been a problem recently with a number of incidents that are going to ramp up the complaints.

I know they have a long history as a tributary of China and you could see the Chinese influence in their culture. I was stationed there many moons ago.

This is literally well over a century ago, and no longer matters today. It's like making the statement that the US had a long history of paying taxes to England! Meaningless now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Don't forget the current base issue came up under Obama, which involved Biden too. If Biden is inaugurated then I suspect he'll shore up the military in Asia, thus Okinawa, but then be soft on China politically and economically - essentially selling out the Chinese people to global corporations, ignore the Uygur genocide there and let jobs drain out of the US overseas again

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yubaru  (Today 03:17 pm JST),

The turnout for this year's U.S. Presidential election was 66%, but it's been constantly a little over 50% since 2000. So this year's turnout was unusually high.

Can you say that since the turnout in Okinawa's 2019 referendum asking about the appropriateness of transferring Futenma to Henoko was 55%, the result can't be credited?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The turnout for this year's U.S. Presidential election was 66%, but it's been constantly a little over 50% since 2000. So this year's turnout was unusually high.

Can you say that since the turnout in Okinawa's 2019 referendum asking about the appropriateness of transferring Futenma to Henoko was 55%, the result can't be credited?

Wow, apples and oranges, along with pulling at straws, and btw, read the link, it wasn't 55%, and even if it was, it still isnt the majority of Okinawan voters.

FACT; the MAJORITY of voters in Okinawa dont care! Roughly 720,000 eligible voters, didn't vote, supported the base, or had no opinion, vs 434,273 who were against it!

Even you must see the numbers there, it's not a mirage, it's a plain fact! Your "fake news", innuendo, suppositions, and all the other false information you have posted here, are not supported by the actual numbers!

You can not continue to state that the "majority" of Okinawa does this or does that, you have zero facts to support that opinion.

You can state that the "anti" crowd gained the higher number of votes in the referendum, but that does not equal the "majority" of all Okinawa.

Even you should see the obvious here!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can you say that since the turnout in Okinawa's 2019 referendum asking about the appropriateness of transferring Futenma to Henoko was 55%, the result can't be credited?

The result shows that the majority of those who voted on the day voted against it. It does not show that the majority of Okinawa's people are against it. There is a clear difference.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Reality check

Japan did not win WW2, are you aware of that?

We lost the War and America invaded Okinawa by the end. Fact

Japan did not ask America to move to Okinawa, the Americans already there after the war. They choose the location. Fact

Okinawa was not given back to Japan until decades later in the 70s. America had full power, ownership,Bases already.

Crimes committed on the Island is not by Japanese soldiers, It's by American soldiers!

Marines behaving bad, committing crimes, not showing respect to locals, raping girls and women. ALL OF THAT IS AMERICA. Fact

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Don't forget the current base issue came up under Obama, which involved Biden too. If Biden is inaugurated then I suspect he'll shore up the military in Asia, thus Okinawa, but then be soft on China politically and economically - essentially selling out the Chinese people to global corporations, ignore the Uygur genocide there and let jobs drain out of the US overseas again

Sigh. The whole world sees China differently today. The pivot to the Pacific for US forces was begun by the Obama administration if you recall and a lot of the new hardware coming on line right now entered testing ten to twelve years ago. Uyghurs weren't held in concentration camps in 2016 and Hong Kong was still relatively free. Much has changed. You might also remember that after years and years of the US complaining about Chinese hacking, and Xi Jinping himself basically daring the US to prove it, in 2015 the US indicted five PLA members who were and perhaps still are members of a specific PLA unit in Shanghai under the command of the 2nd Directorate of the PLA that engages in hacking and exploiting foreign industrial IT systems to steal their intellectual property. Mandiant, now called Fireeye, published an open source report on this same organization in 2013 calling it Advanced Persistent Threat 1 or APT1 for short. It is available on line for free and is a good read btw.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yubaru,

The turnout on Feb. 24, 2019 when the referendum on the Henoko relocation took place was 52.48%, to be exact. There're considered to be many reasons why some people didn't bother to go to polling stations to cast their ballots. 

Not only the citizens of Ginowan, where Futenma Air Station is planted, but also people in other municipalities may have dithered to vote, for if they opposed the relocation, they were afraid Ginowan citizens must shoulder the burden of hosting the base forever, but if they supported it, people in Henoko would suffer in the Ginowan citizens' place. 

The weather on the day of voting wasn't so good for outing to vote, either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Desert Tortoise

After all the Ryukyu Kingdom was a Chinese vassal state and not really independent.

Vassaldom means independence, since it was merely a diplomatic arrangement and has nothing to do with governing.

After all, Ryukyu kingdom was governed by the Ryukyuan king and not by a Chinese governor, there were no Chinese troops present in Ryukyu kingdom, diplomatic emissaries were exchanged, etc.

There is no exchange of diplomatic emissaries between Beijing and China's provinces, after all.

Ryukyu was an independent sovereign kingdom until 1879. The difference between Qing and Japan was that while Qing was willing to respect Ryukyu's sovereignty, Japan's Meiji imperialists weren't.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why ??? time will tell. Japan has to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ryukyu was an independent sovereign kingdom until 1879. The difference between Qing and Japan was that while Qing was willing to respect Ryukyu's sovereignty, Japan's Meiji imperialists weren't.

The Ryukyus were not sovereign in the modern sense. It's royalty were considered subordinate tributaries of the Ming and Qing. They were provided ships by China with which to conduct trade at Chinese ports, but the who's and where's of their seaborne trade was strictly controlled by China. The Ming and Qing sent representatives there on a regular rotation to supervise the Ryukyu kings. Ming or Qing blessing was also required to invest a new king. The Ryukyus had to keep their developing relationship with Japan secret from the Chinese for fear of retribution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ReasonandWisdomNippon Americans always say they protect Okinawa from the Chinese. Question How many Uchinanchu  have the Chinese killed? How many Uchinanchu  have the Americans killed? I am sure President Biden will go along with the free to the USA Okinawa training bases. Another Question can the troops on the US Bases keep the Chinese from invading Okinawa? What are there 15 fighters on Kadena? How many fighters can China put over Okinawa? Then add in missile and cruise missiles. So in reality Japan pays the USA to keep training bases on Okinawa.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Whether Okinawa becomes part of Mainland China or stays as a prefecture in Japan, they should get rid of every single American military base in Okinawa as well as the rest of Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

US. U.S. The Okinawa Forces easily used their Okinawa bases to send their soldiers to Vietnam and Cambodia, which had little to do with protecting Japan from foreign invasions. While it was not in line with the protection convention, the Japanese government accepted it. In the meantime, Japan has lately been plagued by China's hostile behaviour at Senkaku.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US. U.S. The Okinawa Forces easily used their Okinawa bases to send their soldiers to Vietnam and Cambodia, which had little to do with protecting Japan from foreign invasions.

Wow....please do a little more research about the time frame you are referring to here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates:

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.

Strictly speaking, then, U.S. forces are allowed to use bases in Japan only for the security of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East. But haven’t the U.S. forces used these bases for other purposes with impunity, for example, as staging posts to invade other countries not subsumed under the category Far East?

Incidentally, “its land, air and naval forces” in the English version of Article 6 are clearly stated as “the Army, Air Force and Navy” in the Japanese version of the treaty. No mention of the Marines!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No mention of the Marines

The US Marines fall under the Department of the Navy. To this day the Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy. When that treaty was written they are far more subordinate to the Navy than today. President Truman in particular was openly hostile to the Marines, considering the Marines to have a "propaganda machine" equal to that of Joseph Stalin while stating that in combat Marines were to be subordinate to the Army. During the Korean War that was certainly the case. There was no USMC representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1955 when the Commandant could be called in for discussions of matters that affected the Marines, but the Commandant was not a full time sitting member of the JCS. That would not happen until the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and not without a fight in Congress from members who emphatically did not want a Marine General sitting on the JCS. There are still many in the military and in Congress who want to see Goldwater-Nichols repealed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

Here, we are again to have come all the way around the question of whether the Marine Corps is the Navy or not. The Marines are not the Navy because it is attached to the Department of the Navy.  It's attached there only for administrative reasons. The Marine Corps, a genuine military service, is independent of another genuine military service called the Navy. 

The Department of the Navy is a bureaucratic body that administers both services, the Navy and the Marine Corps. But the Department of the Navy is never a military service.

You may counter by saying that the service administered by the Department of Army is the Army, and the service administered by the Department of Air Force is the Air Force, so that a service administered by the Department of Navy is the Navy. Since the Marine Corps is administered by the Department of Navy, they are the Navy.

The catch is that, in the two cases of the Army and Air Force, the nomenclatures of departments and services coincide, but in the case of Marine Corps they don't. Only the original Navy can fit in here and so can be called the Navy.

President Trump created a new service called Space Force recently. I'm sure it will be attached to the Department of Air Force solely for the sake of convenience. But since they aren't part of the Air Force, any contingent of them cannot deploy to Japan as far as they are an independent service of the U.S. Air Force.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Incidentally, “its land, air and naval forces” in the English version of Article 6 are clearly stated as “the Army, Air Force and Navy” in the Japanese version of the treaty. No mention of the Marines!

Let's use your words against you,

Strictly speaking

Even you know when the treaty was written, the Marine Corp was part of the Navy. Now it's not, times change!

Quit beating the same, poor, dead horse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here, we are again to have come all the way around the question of whether the Marine Corps is the Navy or not. The Marines are not the Navy because it is attached to the Department of the Navy. It's attached there only for administrative reasons.

You are playing word games. Read my previous post, and please stop with copying and pasting the same boorish posts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru

Even you know when the treaty was written, the Marine Corp was part of the Navy. Now it's not, times change! Quit beating the same, poor, dead horse.

You finally acknowledged the Marine Corps isn't part of the Navy. Then, they can't maintain bases here on the basis of Article 6 of the Security Treaty. You suggest that when the treaty was signed in 1951 the Marines were part of the Navy, but not any more. Well said.

OK, then. If the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is a dead horse now, it should be scrapped. The U.S. can't use it as a basis for everything concerned with its forces stationed in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even you know when the treaty was written, the Marine Corp was part of the Navy. Now it's not, times change!

That is factually wrong. The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy. There is no Secretary of the Marine Corps. The Marines like to talk like they are a separate service from the others but organizationally they are not. They are part of the US Navy. Operationally they depend on the Navy to get places. The Marines do not have their own amphibious lift or water craft. Those are all US Navy owned and manned. In addition, their medical staff are Navy Corpsmen, Navy doctors, Navy nurses and Naval hospitals. The Marines do not have their own medical corps. Their pilots graduate from Navy flight school and are designated "Naval Aviators".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By comparison the US Army operates its own fleet of Army owned and Army manned landing ships and watercraft, much of which is different from what the Navy operates for the Marines. In addition the Army has huge Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) transport ships operated by the Military Sealift Command filled with Army tanks, artillery, armored vehicles and trucks stationed around the US and abroad for use in amphibious campaigns or to be offloaded to support a major land campaign. They also have tankers full of fuel and ships loaded with ammunition, all of which is completely separate from the Navy and Marines Corps amphibious organization.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy. There is no Secretary of the Marine Corps.

Does the top of the Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marines, report to the top of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations?  If not, the Marine Corps is not part of the Navy however closely they may be associated with each other in military operations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does the top of the Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marines, report to the top of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations? If not, the Marine Corps is not part of the Navy however closely they may be associated with each other in military operations.

The CNO and Commandant both report to the Secretary of the Navy. That puts the Marines within the Navy chain of command. However note that while there is a five star rank for the Navy, called Admiral of the Fleet awarded only in wartime, there is no comparable five star rank for the Marines. The Marines operationally are always subordinate to the Navy. You do not see a Navy Admiral subordinate to a Marine General in the field. The Navy is responsible for developing and testing aircraft and weapons for the Marines. They don't have a stand alone research, development, test and evaluation organization but are integrated into the Navy's huge RDTE establishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Marines depend on the Navy for transportation at sea. But they don't depend on the Army or the Air Force for transportation on land or in the air. They don't depend on the Navy-owned aircraft for air transportation, either. Then, if they want, they can own their own ships for sea transportation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then, if they want, they can own their own ships for sea transportation.

Just because you assume it, does not make it fact!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Marines have their own motor transportation units to transport troops on land. Why don't they ask the Army Transportation Corps to do the job for them? It may be because there's rivalry between the two services and, furthermore, there'd probably be too much red tape in it. For these reasons, the Marines have their own transportation units. In the same token, they have their own air wings like the Air Force.

There may no rivalry nor red tape to go through between the Navy and the Marine Corps, which may derive from their shared history in the past. But just because of that, one can say today’s Marine Corps and the Navy are the same. They are mutually independent, different services now.

Hence, their stationing in Japan is against the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hence, their stationing in Japan is against the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and so, Mr. Suga and Mr. Biden, the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation is thoroughly out of the question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But they don't depend on the Army or the Air Force for transportation on land or in the air. 

The heck they don't ! All the services rely on the Air Mobility Command, part of the USAF, for airlift and both Navy and Marine combat jets rely heavily on USAF tankers. None of what the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft do today in the Middle East would be possible without Air Force tankers. While in the Navy I flew lots and lots of places on USAF cargo planes but never once flew on a Navy or Marine Corps transport aircraft. Big moves always require the Air Force. That's their job. Who else flies C-17s and C-5Ms? Internal to the US all the services use rail for heavy equipment and the USAF for troop movements. USAF tankers are scheduled for cross country squadron deployments, what are euphemistically called "cross country drags" as the tanker has to lead the tactical jets and provide them with multiple refuelings to make it across the US. Figuratively the tanker is dragging the jets along behind it. The Navy and Marines also rely heavily on USAF tankers to support development testing and exercises. The Navy has exactly two old Boeing 707 tankers on charter from Omega Air Services for tanker support in the US for both Navy and Marine Corps. Two tankers can't be everywhere at once and they don't deploy to combat zones so the Air Force is refueling a lot of Navy and Marine Corps jets every day.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The heck they don't ! All the services rely on the Air Mobility Command, part of the USAF, for airlift and both Navy and Marine combat jets rely heavily on USAF tankers.

Shhh...you are going to pop someone's bubble! They cant handle the truth!

They try, time and time again, to blow a bowling ball through a paper straw!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This won't come up during Biden's first and probably only term of office.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

Your post details how dependent Navy and Marine jets are on Air Force tankers. They even rely on Omega Air Refueling, a private company, that provides aerial refueling services for military customers.  

Thank you for the detailed information, but what's that to do with a discussion on whether the Marines are part of the Navy or not? What do you want to say with these technical facts?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

but what's that to do with a discussion on whether the Marines are part of the Navy or not?

You arent looking for a "discussion" you are looking to find someone, somewhere, to agree with you!

Doesnt matter either, the MC is here, it's here to stay, and whether you like it or not, nothing you say or speculate or theorize about it, will change it.

It's been that way for a few generations, and will stay that way, for as long as Tokyo and the US government (Pay attention here, NOT Okinawan government) agree about them and the bases being here.

It's purely an academic issue, left for stuffy university classrooms where students theorize about "what if's" and not about the "real world".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Doesnt matter either, the MC is here, it's here to stay, and whether you like it or not, nothing you say or speculate or theorize about it, will change it.

Wow, no strategic reasons for the Marines to stay here? They will stay here because they want to? They don't care whether their stay will sacrifice local people or not? 

They want to stay here no matter what. So simple. That's what you want to say.

This is nothing but gangsters' logic!  We don't need gangsters here.  Nor occupation forces-turned "invited guests".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, no strategic reasons for the Marines to stay here? 

It matters nothing what you "think" what matters is how the Japanese government thinks about the issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They want to stay here no matter what. So simple. That's what you want to say.

You really dont get it. It's not about what I nor you nor anyone here has to say. There are benefits to both countries having the security agreement in place. And FYI I never said this, you assume otherwise.

Dont like it? Take your complaints to Kasumigaseki, but dont be surprised if no one listens there either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,  

My argument is addressed not only to Washington but also to Tokyo because they are all part of the same gang. 

Tokyo is too fearful and too timid to say just things outright because they fear offending the U.S. government would undermine the bilateral alliance, causing the U.S. to drag their heels to defend Japan should contingencies ever occur.  So they won't speak out their mind outright. 

You know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My argument is addressed not only to Washington but also to Tokyo because they are all part of the same gang. 

Once again, off the mark. Your argument and all your comments should be directed at Tokyo only!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yubaru,

Didn't you know the U.S. is a primary party responsible for all U.S. base issues including the Henoko relocation, in Okinawa? If you deny it, then you are no different from a tax evader who exclaims to a visiting tax inspector, "Go to the tax office in Kasumigazeki. They have every bit of responsibility about this. You came to a wrong door."  Lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't you know the U.S. is a primary party responsible for all U.S. base issues including the Henoko relocation, in Okinawa? If you deny it, then you are no different from a tax evader who exclaims to a visiting tax inspector, "Go to the tax office in Kasumigazeki. They have every bit of responsibility about this. You came to a wrong door." Lol.

I have forgotten more about Okinawa than you know! Leave it at that!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Im no fan of Biden at all, I think he was the worst possible candidate to ever be chosen for the Dem ticket but Trump needs to move on, it would help transition all this base stuff and get the optics off of Trump and on to Biden. I never expected Biden to win, but it is what it is. The dragging by Trump is getting a bit old now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Marines do not have their own amphibious lift or water craft. Those are all US Navy owned and manned.

kinda sorta agree, the USMC has the MEUSOC but those boats are driven by the USN but those amphib carriers are not regular Navy...well its an "are but arent", to my understanding

Why would the USMC need its own boats? Redundancy x 2. They are the USN light infantry.

The Marines were never officially part of the special warfare community, or whatever they are calling it these days, until recently with MARSOC, but that evolution is too complicated to discuss here. Force worked for the MAGTF, and div recon worked at the bn level. Probably best stay away from the USMC vs. Army redundancy discussion....lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

I have forgotten more about Okinawa than you know! Leave it at that

Bring it on. I'm always ready to counter your argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marines behaving bad, committing crimes, not showing respect to locals, raping girls and women. ALL OF THAT IS AMERICA. Fact

somewhat agree, but you left out the predecessors....the Satsuma clan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

somewhat agree, but you left out the predecessors....the Satsuma clan

Don't leave out the Okinawan people either. Despite all the work some people do, trying to create an image of all Okinawan's being peace loving hippies, their history is quite different. They Ryukyu Kingdom did not come about by three different warlords getting together and smoking a peace pipe! Anyone who says differently is blowing smoke up your butt!

Let's not forget the Okinawan's themselves who raped their own too

Oh but, it's ok for some posters here. It's because they are Japanese and not foreigners, so anything the Japanese do wrong, well it's just "shoganai"!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring it on. I'm always ready to counter your argument.

No argument, just fact, Your posts are always misdirected, misleading, and most importantly just opinions.

When you post your opinions, and state them as "facts", you will be called out for it, learn from that, use the words, "In my opinion" or "I think" , it makes it easier to respond to, and have an actual discussion, otherwise it's just all flame bait.

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