Japan Today
politics

Obama, Abe discuss Syria crisis

25 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

While in St Petersburg, Obama will also meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping

Abe should also try get hold of Park and Xi who have been evasive ever since he became the PM (!)

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Obama says "Here are the orders Abe, prove yoruself to the Dark Side".

9 ( +12 / -3 )

What is link, Japan and Syria? Is constitution point 9 already changed? I didn't notice!

If Constitution is NOT change, Japan is NOT involve in Syria! It's by law! Oh, sorry, I forgot - America doesn't care a law.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

U.S. President Barack Obama said

... why didn't Abe say it? Perhaps because they agree on doing something, but their idea of what to do is radically different.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Maybe Japan can sell its N- expertise? What a money maker.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So what can Abe do? Shout loudly? Tell Assad his actions are regrettable, or maybe send in AKB48?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This stance against chemical warfare is about support and justice for mankind. In war, regardless if it is chemical or mass weapons of destruction, any innocent lives taken is crime in itself.

The world must stand united to go against 'Evil Barbarism' of a lunatic regime whom disregarded the weak and poor souls.

We must stop chemical warfare at all costs.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I hope they also discuss Russian-Japan antagonism over the northern islands and Law Of the Sea sealane demarcations between Russia and Japan. Although Obama might want to seem impartial on Japan's foreign policy challenges, if he is asking Abe for attention I bet he is promising support for Abe's concerns about Russian foreign policy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Instead of bowing Obama, Abe should push in an open, honest, and direct manner for a political solution to the problem.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan will answer to USA to support their military intervention to Syria. It might be better choice to support them to maintain Japan-US relations, but at the same time Japan has to consider about what exactly military intervention means. In situation of Syria, anti-government organization has been fighting against official government to insist their political insistence. The reason why US will be there is just because governmental military forces may have used chemical weapons, so if US goes there, then they would support for anti-government organization.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ann von MehrenSep. 06, 2013 - 12:34AM JST I hope they also discuss Russian-Japan antagonism over the northern islands and Law Of the Sea sealane >demarcations between Russia and Japan. Although Obama might want to seem impartial on Japan's foreign policy >challenges, if he is asking Abe for attention I bet he is promising support for Abe's concerns about Russian foreign >policy.

The United States already considers the Southern Kuriles to be Japanese territory under Russian administration. We have done so since 1945 when the Soviets stole the four islands. There is no need for US muscle because unlike the Senkakus, both nations are civilized and seeking to settle the problem through diplomatic channels.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Verbal support from Abe is the biggest coup to Obama if Abe does. Maybe Obama does not know Japan can't send SDF to Middle East? Maybe Obama does not know Tsunami was in Japan? Maybe Obama is thinking Japan as next Afgan?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Maybe Obama is thinking Japan as next Afgan?

I'm sorry, but I do not think this makes much sense.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Abe: Please let me play pew-pew with my gunships.....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The United States already considers the Southern Kuriles to be Japanese territory under Russian administration. We have done so since 1945 when the Soviets stole the four islands. There is no need for US muscle because unlike the Senkakus, both nations are civilized and seeking to settle the problem through diplomatic channels.

Go fish or land on the islands then.

Civilized or the japanese know that Russian won't go far to sink any Japanese boat full of rightwing clown near those islands?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Still less clear would be the consequences inside Syria of such an intervention. Does anyone seriously imagine that a cruise missile attack on Syria would make ordinary citizens long for the unfinished, warring and violent opposition factions to take over their country? It will of course do the reverse. It will most likely strengthen Assad. But it will reinforce the conviction of extremists that only by a "massacre" which can be blamed on Assad will the West be driven to overthrow Assad and a result the opposition is unable to achieve by its own efforts alone. To toss a few cruise missiles into this volatile, unstable brew simply is to invite the unforeseeable and the unwanted to make its explosive appearance. If 70% of the Syrian population really supports Assad, then he should have been able to resolve this problem politically, rather than by killing citizens who oppose him in droves.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The_TrueSep. 06, 2013 - 03:04AM JST Go fish or land on the islands then.

Unlike China, Japan does not have a government agency that orders fishjng boats into disputed waters and ramming law enforcement vessels for the sake of deliberately creating international incidents.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

slumdog: USA have their military troops in Japan. 68 years now? USA is pulling out Afgan troops. Where USA willl send their Afgan troops? Not UK, not France, Not Italy, Not Germany, Not Spain. Japan has been paying many billion dollars a year to let USA keep base in Japan. Excuse of threat of N Korea and China enables USA to shift its Afgann troops to Japan.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ok.... Still doesn't mean the US should go in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria and hundreds of innocent civilians were killed. The U.N. investigation team will prove that soon. But can they prove who used the chemical weapon(s)?

The Iranian government says someone unfamiliar with the use of chemical weapons, probably on the side of rebels, exploded it by mistake. That possibility is quite strong and cannot be disregarded.

If that's true indeed and if the U.S. and its few NATO allies were to attack Syria, a sovereign state, they would repeat exactly the same mistake as in Iraq.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I look forward to an extensive conversation about the situation in Syria and ... our joint recognition that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only a tragedy but also a violation of international law that must be addressed,” Obama told reporters.

Striking any nation on that earth without the UN security council resolution is the violation of international law that mus be avoided by Obama who is a spin master. If US will act alone, he is indifferent from Bush. He criticized Neo Cons as creators of dumb war. He is dumber than them for supplying weapons who are the Islamic extremists.

http://www.mail.com/int/news/us/2313004-spin-meter-obama-use-us-military.html#.1258-stage-hero1-6

If one of US service man were killed by that Syrian rebels with US supplied weapons, As a commander of Arm forces, Obama is responsible for crime against own soldiers. According Afghan experience, US Marines trained and armed Afghan soldiers. However sadly some of them were killed by their trainee who were double agents. Likely it will be repeated again in Syria.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/troops-protest-syria-military-strike-2013-9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ5mrm7dHP0

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/soldiers-protest-war-syria-facebook-article-1.1444535

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Honest Abe is such a brown nose.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Where USA willl send their Afgan troops?

They send many of them to Germany already. Your comparison with Afghanistan and Japan still makes no sense. There is not one bit of similarity. Feel like talking about Syria?

Personally, I hope Abe and Obama talked about being very careful about getting involved in any more Middle East wars.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Abe looks unctuously concerned with the situation but somehow remains noncommittal without saying that he would support America's military action. It's not necessarily because he is disliked by Obama, but perhaps because he wants to draw a line with American skulduggery.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This may be old because 7.8 Reuter Report on NY Times. US Troops in Afgan 63,000. Obama Administration promised it will be 34,000 by next Feb. Will be out of Afgan by the end of 2004. Nothing about Germany. It is still a planning stage. .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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