politics

Thousands protest greater Japanese military role

64 Comments

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

I hear a lot about "Abe says" ...... "Abe says" ....... acting as the supreme leader. Not accepting discussions with the electorate, and providing a vote on important issues like a change in the constitution is not a democracy.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Thousands in a country of millions.

-14 ( +9 / -23 )

@ReformedBasher

Thousands in a country of millions.

Seriously? So unless millions turn out it's just a minor, insignificant protest?

7 ( +12 / -5 )

wish these protesters can get tv coverage atleast on NHK.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

Thousands in a country of millions.

Yup. Touch, unpopular decision, but it needs to be made for the security of Japan.

-14 ( +6 / -20 )

I do agree that Article 9 inhibits Japan's defensive capabilities, in particular being unable to deliver a preemptive strike. Modern technology has made Japan vulnerable with the Constitution in its current state so it does need amending. I just feel very uncomfortable that it's being engineered by an ultra conservative government with a leader who has a clear nationalist agenda.

-8 ( +6 / -13 )

Banz10: Do you realize that if we do a preemtive strike, it would be us who is starting a war? What country do you want to attack with a preemptive strike?

14 ( +16 / -3 )

but it needs to be made for the security of Japan.

MGigante -- how so? How does re-interpreting the Constitution "to allow the Japanese military to help defend other nations", help Japan's security? Clearly, as the article states, this is being done "because of China’s military expansion and missile and nuclear threats from North Korea". So how does facing-off against China in say the Philippines or somewhere else make Japan more secure?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Many old people who lived through the Second World War understand that the greatest threat to the Japanese people is not North Korea, is not China, but is their own politicians and government.

19 ( +23 / -4 )

Sadly, these protests are falling on stone ears. Just the fact that they changed the law last year so they didn't need a public referendum to change the constitution tells you that this was always gonna happen. The Japanese government has a very long history of ignoring public opinion and just doing whatever they like. If Abe goes through with this it will be political suicide for him and he will become the 16th ex-prime minister in as many years.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Whilst i applaud them for coming out to the street , just like the Fukushima anti nuclear protests , as long as the protesters obediently and orderly follow all the instructions given to them by the authorities , ie.. Don't stand here, keep this pavement / road clear, don,t cause any inconvenience to anyone or anything...the government will only ever pay them lip service and do what it wants anyway. An unfortunate fact of the matter is until they block a few roads and do cause a bit of " inconvenience" the govt. will not pay any attention to their opinions.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"Protect the Constitution![imposed to Japan by Americans]" they shouted.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

jerseyboy- One of the arguments being put forth (and one that carries a decent amount of merit) is two fold. First, by engaging in collective defense, it ensures that if/when an enemy attacks you, you will have people who will "have your back," so to speak. To sit on the sidelines saying "please protect us because of this treaty 'we signed," while at the same time saying "on the other hand, you're on your own, we can't help you," does not exactly lead to a secure situation, and you can find yourself in a very lonely situation when your back is against the wall.

Secondly, by engaging in collective defense, it allows Japan to work with others to contain and stymie a potential regional hegemon before it becomes so powerful that it cannot be contained or stopped. The fact is, China has been acting like a bully regionally, for going on 20 years now. They've been able to get away with it because they've been picking on smaller. "less important" SE Asian nations, and keeping the arguments with China and Korea mostly limited to PR campaigns. If China can secure their SE Asian advances, this would most likely change. The ability to check the Chinese aggression before it spreads more is actually helpful.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I do agree that Article 9 inhibits Japan's defensive capabilities, in particular being unable to deliver a preemptive strike.

"Preemptive strike", a euphemism for "starting a war".

Sadly, these protests are falling on stone ears.

While this is true, at least it shows that not all Japanese are sheep, and that not all Japanese agree with the wannabe-warmongering government.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Seriously? So unless millions turn out it's just a minor, insignificant protest?

You are using words like "minor" and "insignificant". I'm saying it's hardly proof of a majority. If the polls prove me wrong, then feel free to be smug. But even that only appeals to people who prefer political waffle than to follow history.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Japanese government does not exist to protect the people, it exists to protect itself from the people.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@Stuart Hayward

Do you realize that if we do a preemtive strike, it would be us who is starting a war? What country do you want to attack with a preemptive strike?

First of all, who do you mean by "we" and "us"? Neither of us appear to be Japanese.

Just to educate you, North Korea is now a nuclear capable state. If they, for instance, were fueling a ballistic missile that was potentially carrying a chemical or nuclear warhead aimed at Tokyo, don't you think Japan has the right to prevent that launch? Even a crude ICBM could reach here in under half an hour. What if efforts to intercept it failed?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

David -- really? Let's think about your two points:

One of the arguments being put forth (and one that carries a decent amount of merit) is two fold. First, by engaging in collective defense, it ensures that if/when an enemy attacks you, you will have people who will "have your back," so to speak

Seriously? To "have Japan's back" a country would need to have a deterrent force that scares China -- meaning a blue water navy, capable of operating in the vicinity of Japan. Please name another Asian country that has this capablilty? Hell, the Philippines cannot even get reinforcements/supplies to islands it occupies.

Secondly, by engaging in collective defense, it allows Japan to work with others to contain and stymie a potential regional hegemon before it becomes so powerful that it cannot be contained or stopped.

Again, who is this "collective defense", other than the U.S. and possibly Austrailia? No other country in Asia has the capability to truly "stymie a potential regional hegemon".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ReformedBasher:

If the polls prove me wrong, then feel free to be smug.

Let's keep the feeling smug and humiliating others for the playground. Some findings:

Mainichi Shimbun said over the weekend that 58 percent of voters are opposed, while 80 percent feel the government has more explaining to do. In its poll published Monday, the Nikkei business newspaper said 50 percent of respondents are against the change.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/06/30/national/japan-pushing-on-with-military-reform-despite-protesters-self-immolation/#.U7H2sBZD4aY

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There are many countries in the world that do not have the ability to protect themselves from aggressive attacks - Canada is one - in fact most countries is the world.-- If Canada is attacked the alliance with the USA and others makes it a joint defense effort. This is what we need to do for Japan too.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ReformedBasher: Scrolling down the list of JT articles, I soon hit this one that shows 54% of the Japanese voters are against Abe's constitution rewrite.

http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/politics/54-of-japanese-voters-oppose-abes-security-shift

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"If the polls prove me wrong, then feel free to be smug."

The polls DO prove you wrong. So you may want to recant your earlier statements, that is, if you're not the smug type.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This is what we need to do for Japan too.

This is what the US need to justify a presence of US bases in Japan. A hundred years ago Japan was able to protect Japanese soil without any assistance. Nowadays Japan is able to do the same. Just change a political course and attitude to national armed forces.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Jerseyboy, the USA has had Japan's back for nearly 70 years. We forced them to create the JSDF in 1950. We tried to get them to drop Article 9 since the 1980s. But Japan always resisted. It took China just 4 years to do what we couldn't in 30 years. These protesters are the remains of those who backed no change to Japan's military for decades and have gotten comfortable with the idea that American servicemen and servicewomen must shed blood to protect them, but Japan does not have to do the same for the United States. The entire word, bar China for obvious reasons welcomes Japan's moves to normalize it's military.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

banz10: Though it has noting to do with this subject, I will answer your question. I have dual UK / US citizenship, I've been living in Japan (with my Japanese wife and children) So "we" stands for multiple nationalities, including Japanese. Nice try at deflection though. True NK now has the ability to strike but China & Russia have had this capability for a very long time, yet they haven't attacked us. Do you want to start a war with them as well? You seem to think that a preemptive attack would protect us ALL, when it would surely do the opposite! Do you think Israel has become safer by continuously doing preemptive strikes? They have every advanced weapon, yet they live in a constant state of fear and are still continuously attacked. There will never be a military solution to their and our challenges. That being said, I have no problem with improving our defensive capabilities and the constitution doesn't challenge that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sorry but too few and too late! The announcement is at hand and if people had wished to change Abe's mind they needed to have been out there loud and strong when they first learned of the issue and protested everyday until the message affected the Prime Minister or at least Komeito.

At a June 28 gathering of representatives from the New Komeito's 47 prefectural chapters, ALL local chapters are reported to have said they resist collective self-defense. Local representatives from local chapters across the country either expressed reservations or opposition regarding the move and some even called for the party to leave the ruling coalition.

"Party leaders attempted to convince local delegates to support the government's move by telling them that the party will continue to uphold the war-renouncing Article 9 of the pacifist Constitution. The party leaders also made sure that they will travel across the country to meet supporters in person to offer briefings about the Cabinet decision once it has been made."

Something is amiss when even the Komeito leadership is refusing to back-down to Abe when nearly it's entire party is voicing opposition to the move and begs the question what has Abe promised the Komeito leadership in-return for it's support! Sad that the media hasn't reported more on this June 28 meeting!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

While I personally am in favor of modifying the Constitution to allow limited collective self-defense, I will agree that the amount of PUBLIC debate with the Political Leadership laying out it's vision of what it entails and why it is needed has been far below what I would have expected.

In addition, I am surprised in the meekness of the opposition. Could it be because they realize that it is necessary and just want to stay quiet? I don't know, but its a guess.

I still remember the uproar in 1992 over the adoption of legislation allowing Japan to participate in Peace-Keeping operations. The Miyazawa Cabinet spent a great deal of time trying (with very limited success to educate and convince the population to the necessity of the law. And the opposition parties went nuts! The slow walk to the voting booth, the disruptions of parlimentary proceedings, etc. There has been nothing like that so far and I am surprised.

Again, I personally am in favor (and I can also see legitimate arguements for being against), but on an issue this big, I do not think that the approach of the Abe Administration is the best option. In order to win support, he must go the extra mile (or 1.6km) to show the public just why this big (and it really is a big thing) adjustment needs to be made.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Collective self-defense worked out really well in Europe 100 years ago, didn't it. All those mutual defense treaties, ensured that no one would dare start a war.

But then, the real result: one teenager with a pistol in Sarajevo,.... and EVERYONE is drawn into war.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So I have this good friend who tells me, "If anyone gives you trouble or attempts to harm you, count on me to back you all the way". I respond. "Thanks buddy, Cannot say the same for me. If you get attacked, you're on your own" CSD means Japan can assist it's allies as it's allies will assist Japan in the event that an attack is instigated by an enemy. (By enemy, it means one who attacks ). It does not require Japan to assist an ally should the ally instigate an attack, nor does it require the ally to assist should Japan instigate an attack. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. What's all the fuss about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Graham DeShazo

I still remember the uproar in 1992 over the adoption of legislation allowing Japan to participate in Peace-Keeping operations. The Miyazawa Cabinet spent a great deal of time trying (with very limited success to educate and convince the population to the necessity of the law. And the opposition parties went nuts! The slow walk to the voting booth, the disruptions of parlimentary proceedings, etc. There has been nothing like that so far and I am surprised.

Their silence has to be one of the biggest mysteries for me as-well-as one of the biggest blunders especially with regards to Minshuto. Minshuto along with the other opposition parties could have fed off the opposition to Abe's move but they dropped the ball. One reason for their silence might be that they actually support Abe's moves but a more likely and sinister idea is that they hope Abe gets his way along with some of his other pet projects and a public movement begins against Abe and the ruling coalition which Minshuto can ride into power come next election.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I personally support japans steps to remiltarize, it's the right of sovereign nations to both defend itself from foreign threats and wage war if it chooses, why should Japan's government be bound to a constitution that was forced upon them. It is illogical for any nation to sit idly by when they see a growing threat by any nation, especially a nation that is making a point to use its own growing military to intimidate neighboring nations. It is also important to realize that although other nations may pledge to defend Japan from foreign invasion the fact remains that words are different from actions. No matter how many alliances they form there will never be an absolute guarantee that they will defend Japan with sufficient military force chiefly because it is not their home that is being invaded, they have little emotional or cultural attachments to this island in the Atlantic. Japan's military may have a horrible history, especially with china, but that is all the more reason why this Asian pissing contest should end. Japan does not want bloodshed, but if provoked they will fight with the same ferocity as they did a hundred years ago, but this time they are not the invaders, but the invaded, making them all the more deadly.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We all know what happened when Japan last launched 'a preemptive strike' !

Maybe Abe has forgotten his own history?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

ReformedBasherJul. 01, 2014 - 07:11AM JST

Thousands in a country of millions.

The number is not significant here, in true democratic society, a man's first duty should be able to think and express for himself.

That's what count here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Patriot to the emperor...or traitor? I've seen many traitors to Japan on this site. Ha! Ha! Ha! You are clueless. Thank your lucky stars no one is paying you for your insights. You have none. You're clueless.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let the Japanese silent majority stand idly by while the pigs in power once again steer the country wrong. Happened before, is happening now, will happen again. Blind obedience is part of the culture.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

MGiganteJul. 01, 2014 - 07:24AM JST

but it needs to be made for the security of Japan.

The definition of "collective self defense" is the right to defend foreign country at war. I do not know how collective self defense can be necessary for the security of Japan.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So I have this good friend who tells me, "If anyone gives you trouble or attempts to harm you, count on me to back you all the way". I respond. "Thanks buddy, Cannot say the same for me. If you get attacked, you're on your own"

If that best friend of yours has a history of starting punch-ups and then pretending to be the victim (Gulf of Tonkin, 2nd Gulf War - their goatherds waved sticks at us menacingly (after we bombed the cheese out of their goats with our state-of-the-art fighter jets)), you'd be right to refuse to get involved.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Isn't great to have the ability to protest without the fear of being attacked by police and military units!

Osaka_DougJul. 01, 2014 - 07:09AM JST I hear a lot about "Abe says" ...... "Abe says" ....... acting as the supreme leader. Not accepting discussions with the electorate, and providing a vote on important issues like a change in the constitution is not a democracy.

If this weren't a Democratic nation these people wouldn't be allowed to protest, their leaders would be hauled off to some labor camp and then tortured until they publically admitted doing something wrong.

Just because the majority party is using it's majority controls to pass laws doesn't make this a dictatorship. If the opposition had won the last few elections they would be doing the same things.

B.B.Q.DemonJul. 01, 2014 - 09:02AM JST @ReformedBasher: Scrolling down the list of JT articles, I soon hit this one that shows 54% of the Japanese voters are against Abe's constitution rewrite. http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/politics/54-of-japanese-voters-oppose-abes-security-shift

No, that poll asked the opinions of 1000 likely voters and 54% of them opposed Abe's plan. While in Japan there are over 53,000,000 registered voters.

2013 House of Chancellor's Election the LDP won 43% of the votes. 2012 General Election the LDP won 43% of the vote.

Now, as to not having majority support for revising the Constitution let's take a look at the other parties involved. House of Chancellors

LDP 42.7%, They are in favor.

NDK 5.1%, they seem to be in favor of a limited change.

JRP 7.2%, they are in favor of changing the Constitution.

DPJ 16.3%, they are against.

JCP 10.6%, they are against

SDP 0.5%, they are against

YP 7.8%, they are against

The other 9.7% are a toss-up.

The opposition doesn't have the support to stopping what the majority is going to do, if they did they wouldn't have to take to the streets to try and stop it.

In the lower House the LDP holds 294 out of 480 seats and with the 31 seats that the NKP holds the LDP has more than enough votes to pass just about anything.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@SenseNotSoCommon, B.B.Q.Demon

The people in this country can vote in accordance with their views. Is this a hard concept to grasp?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Even if the Government tries to re-interpret they will face a law case by a class action suit which will go up to the highest level court.

This nation's check and balance of power is still at work the last time I checked.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The similarity to African kleptocrats is frighteningly clear.

Assemble your tribe(s): (Check - vested corporate interests!) Empower your military: (Check!) Enrich your tribe(s) with state largesse: (Check - business as usual!) Censor all opposition: (Check - work in progress!)

Long live Shinzo Mugabe!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

We had monthly demonstrations over 10yrs ago outside my apartment against the changing/removal of Article 9.

Not a new issue and not one created by Abe.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Proof yet again that, contrary to the usual negative stereotypes of all Japanese as mindless sheeple afraid to speak out in public, many Japanese DO speak out on issues they feel passionate about.

And, as always, the haters come out and downgrade this by nit picking on the numbers that showed up compared to percentage of Japanese citizens.

Pathetic.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@jerseyboy

how so? How does re-interpreting the Constitution "to allow the Japanese military to help defend other nations", help Japan's security? Clearly, as the article states, this is being done "because of China’s military expansion and missile and nuclear threats from North Korea". So how does facing-off against China in say the Philippines or somewhere else make Japan more secure?

By allowing the JSDF to expand its security capabilities and become closer with nations who are aligned with Japan's strategic interests conflicts will be further deterred and Japanese interests will be defended.

This is necessary for Japan's rather complicated security environment. People should stop being so short-sighted, and see the bigger picture. Article 9 does not keep Japan out of wars, its the occupying 50,000 American troops in Japan, the 30,000 American troops in Korea, and the JSDF that do that. Time for Japan to pick up some of the slack, and become a positive force in the region.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The entire word, bar China for obvious reasons welcomes Japan's moves to normalize it's military.

Ossan -- the entire world, except for 54% of Japanese -- right?

By allowing the JSDF to expand its security capabilities and become closer with nations who are aligned with Japan's strategic interests conflicts will be further deterred and Japanese interests will be defended

MGigante and others -- do you realize how much your double-speak, like the above, harkens back to the U.S. getting involved in Vietnam, and, more recently, Iraq? Phrases like "aligned with Japan's strategic interests" and "interests will be defended" are so vague as to invite abuses. Why does Japan suddenly want to become a "policeman" for Asia? Haven't the U.S. mistakes in this line of thinking taught them the risks involved?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@MGigante

its the occupying 50,000 American troops in Japan

Thanks for your honesty!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

jerseyboy

Not all within the 54% are saying they are against CSD, myself included. The problem is that the government is neglecting due process to amend the constitution which the government should not have power over.

As i have posted earlier re-interpretation of the constitution is a slippery sloop.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@OsscanAmerica

your reason for the sack of return of the USA is insincerity.

also name yourself OsscanAmerica as a Japanese is also fake.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Stuart Hayward

You reside here and have a Japanese wife and children? Join the club, we have jackets. It still doesn't make it "our" country, constitution or military, does it?

China and Russia, recalcitrant as they are, cannot be considered as rogue threats like North Korea. An ICBM attack by North Korea on Japan may not be likely but if there was credible information that they were about to launch a nuclear or chemical missile surely you're not suggesting a Japanese preemptive strike would be starting a war? Who's the aggressor here? You'd happily risk Tokyo being obliterated over the legal rights of Japan being able to defend itself preventively? The US or UK wouldn't think twice about it so why should Japan? As for Israel, as a matter of fact yes I do think they have "become safer by continuously doing preemptive strikes". They may live in fear but it's better than being wiped off the map.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

`@joe bigs: Isn't great to have the ability to protest without the fear of being attacked by police and military units!

Give it time...The way this administration is going the likiehood of such an eventuality is not inconsiderable. Look what they've done already. Unocnstitutional changed the changed the Constitution in what can only be described as a white collar coup de etat, rammed through a Secrets act that a majority of the public did not agree to.

America is happy with both of those developments....so what? Part of the reason the security situation is so tense in Asia is because of America squandering its politcal capitol in the Middle East, and the collapse of the Western financial system because of deregulated smash and grab derivative trading. Both factors, which in turn, helped boost the ascendency of China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Banz10: Do you mean like the credible information we had of WMDs in Iraq? There is never credible information regarding an emanate threat of attack, until a country is actually doing so, that's what defensive anti missile technology is for. And Yes, the first to attack a country, is a country who HAS started a war. As for my wife being Japanese, she should have a say, in the actions of her government and politicians, unless you don't approve of true democracy? One of the reasons I moved away from the UK / US, was because of the governments actions. Japan has had sixty years of peace, something to be proud of, the US / UK don't come close. Lasting, I have been to Israel twice, for a month each time, in my experience, they were ALL very nice to me, but their racial hatred of every neighbor of their borders scares me. Every citizen now has to do military training and teachings that change their mindset, in a negative way. Endless war, paranoia and fear, aren't traits that I want for my children.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Stuart Hayward

As for my wife being Japanese, she should have a say, in the actions of her government and politicians...

She does of course but you and I don't.

There is never credible information regarding an emanate threat of attack, until a country is actually doing so, that's what defensive anti missile technology is for.

What constitutes as "credible information" I agree is debatable. The Bush government and American intelligence agencies lost much integrity over the WMDs. Observing an actual ICBM being fuelled isn't that hard however. If Japan was then determined (credibly) as the likely target, I'd rather be taking out a launch pad in the mountains than gambling on ABMs doing the job.

Endless war, paranoia and fear, aren't traits that I want for my children.

Me either.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Banz10: I already knew that you and I can't vote (not sure of the point your making) but we can voice our opinions and can protest. In a true democracy, the majority of citizens should have a real influence over politicians but Abe does not LISTEN nor WORK for the public, citizens or not. Did you not realize that NK has already fired long range ballistic missiles? Are you saying that we should have already started a war with them by attacking them? At least we agree about the traits we DONT want to teach our children!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think a number of people are freaking out just too much for the sake of their own health considering the big picture. It took centuries of a warring culture to lead Japan into the militarism that was seen in WWII. However, I just don't see how anyone can fear another rise of militarism when that kind of mindset was been skipped away for nearly 3 full generations (69 years to be accurate) as well as how the government structure in Japan has considerably changed since. Several decades of peace change mentalities a lot faster than centuries of military culture, especially when the former came under a democratic government compared to various forms of dictatorship in the latter case.

If you ask my opinion, I believe Japan are right to change their constitution. It is just plain silly to believe Japan can build something with other countries while depending that much from the US. If they adjust their constitution to match what the Germans did when their Federal Constitutional Court ruled the term "defense" has been defined to not only include protection of the borders of Germany, but also crisis reaction and conflict prevention (also abroad), it would just bring Japan within the limits of normality for any sovereign nation. Who would not ask a country like Japan to restore something that should be normal to any country? I would love to see Japan becoming in Asia what Germany has become in Europe.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Stuart Hayward

Well, you have totally missed my point. Constantly referring to Japan as "we", "our" and "us" even though you're not a citizen is weirdly inappropriate.

Abe does not LISTEN nor WORK for the public

As I alluded to in an earlier post, I am very suspicious of Abe's intentions regarding constitutional amendments. He's a nationalist and if his actual agenda is based on his militaristic politics then we should be concerned. Having said that, the Constitution was worded in an era of limited technology so I would support an amendment that would allow Japan to legally make a preemptive strike should there be a legitimate threat of attack.

Did you not realize that NK has already fired long range ballistic missiles? Are you saying that we should have already started a war with them by attacking them?

Yes, thank you, I am aware that NK has previously tried flex its muscles and antagonise its neighbours by TEST firing some crude ballistic missiles, some even over the Japanese archipelago. No, I am not at all saying that Japan (not "we") should have already started a war with them. If you'd read what I said more carefully you'd realise that I'm saying Japan should have the right to strike first if it's certain it's about to be attacked.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

mgglifeJul. 01, 2014 - 01:13PM JST @OsscanAmerica your reason for the sack of return of the USA is insincerity. also name yourself OsscanAmerica as a Japanese is also fake.

Please go take some English classes before further posting. I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you want to insult me at least do so in a manner so that I can understand that I'm being insulted. Xie Xie.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

banz10,

Well, you have totally missed my point. Constantly referring to Japan as "we", "our" and "us" even though you're not a citizen is weirdly inappropriate.

Obviously you have less invested in the country and feel less of a stakeholder than Stuart. That's your entitlement.

Thanks for respecting the feelings of those of us who have invested significant portions of our lives in a country we love, to comment on its future regardless of our political hue.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The definition of "collective self defense" is the right to defend foreign country at war"

Which foreign countries are at war now? It will be tough to determine which side Japan will send its troops. Afgan or USA troops? Help Assad? Help Iraq insurgents? Help African and Arabic country natives?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

jerseyboyJul. 01, 2014 - 12:03PM JST "The entire word, bar China for obvious reasons welcomes Japan's moves to normalize it's military. Ossan -- the entire world, except for 54% of Japanese -- right?

Assuming that 54% is accurate which is questionable, yes, that's right. I'm talking about other countries. The Japanese who are up in arms over this are the post WWII guilt ridden "war is evil under any circumstance" people and the young people who don't want to have to risk their lives ever for their country. The net result in both cases is what Japanese have termed Heiwa-Boke. Only the internationally aware Japanese, and fortunately, the current government recognize the changing political environment in he region and the need to amend it's defense posture to meet those changes.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

the young people who don't want to have to risk their lives ever for their country....

...are not a problem. It's the people young and old who want to risk other people's lives who you need to watch out for.

Them, and the ones who want to kill for their country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The collective defense ,,,, aims toward helping 'friend' countries wars outside of Japan.

Difficult to determine N Kprea or S Korea in case they begin a war. Peaceful demonstration in Japan.

There are mor posters of Kakugi Zettai Hantai (Cabinet resolution - Absolutely Opposing). Others, not clear to read. Maybe demonstrators will show the full messages on placard instead of behind of someone's body.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japanese nationals want other countries citizen to spill their blood for the security of Japan but don't want their citizens to spill blood for their allies!! WTF?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@kaimycahlJUL. 02, 2014 - 04:55AM JST Japanese nationals want other countries citizen to spill their blood for the security of Japan but don't want their citizens to spill blood for their allies!! WTF?

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

The placards are full with Current Japanese Government resolution. Nothing I can decypher 'Japanese nationals want other countries citizen to spill their blood for the security of Japan but don't want their citizens to spill blood for their allies"

0 ( +1 / -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