politics

U.S. Congress cuts funds to move Marines from Okinawa to Guam

97 Comments

The U.S. Congress this week excluded funds to cover a planned transfer of Marines from Okinawa to Guam from its fiscal 2012 defense spending bill.

However, Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said Tuesday that this will not change the Japanese government's policy on the planned transfer of the Futenma air base to Nago City’s Henoko area, NHK reported.

Japan has already paid the U.S. about 80 billion yen to help fund the transfer of the Marines.

Fujimura said the decision by the U.S. Congress will not affect Japan's budget for fiscal 2012. The government will proceed with the plan agreed in 2006 by both governments in order to ease the U.S. military burden on Okinawa. He also said that the government will go ahead with its plan to submit to Okinawa Prefecture an environment assessment report for the proposed Futenma relocation by the year-end, NHK reported.

One of the reasons cited by the Armed Services committee of the Senate and House of Representatives for cutting the relocation funds was that it has become unclear if the Futenma air base will actually be relocated. It said local opposition to the relocation makes it difficult to approve the spending.

The committee said the $150 million allocated for construction projects on Guam to shift 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Futenma need not be allocated for fiscal 2012. It also said that the Pentagon should move the functions of the Futenma base to Kadena Air Base, instead of building a new facility at Nago.

After the decision was announced, U.S. President Barack Obama -- who must sign the bill -- warned that the action could be harmful to bilateral relations, AP reported.

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments
Login to comment

The US must save some money!

Now imagine how much the US would save if it just shut the base down altogether! Its not like the US does not have hundreds more around the world, is it?

-3 ( +4 / -6 )

Japan has already paid the U.S. about 80 billion yen to help fund the transfer of the Marines.

And the US did what with this money? How about a full story for once?

0 ( +7 / -6 )

Japan has already paid the U.S. about 80 billion yen to help fund the transfer of the Marines.

Hey! Thanks for the money! We sure did need it! WTF!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Bad move. Guam is too far away.

-1 ( +3 / -3 )

Just another lie by the Americans. Their goal is to build the new airfield and concede nothing. Means MCAS Futenma will have to remain open. The Marines will need their transport if they are to defend the Senkaku islands. America needs to refund the 80 billion yen to Japan.

-7 ( +2 / -8 )

The central government in Japan pretends to want the relocation of thousands of Marines and their dependents to Guam.

The reality is that they would rather have the U.S. military front and center on Okinawa in the greatest numbers and strength possible to support Japan in that area, one of significant geopolitical importance.

I guess this long-delayed relocation of U.S. forces will happen in the coming years, but when it does, Japan will have to do much more with its Self-Defense forces, especially if it wants to protect territorial/mineral resource claims.

Maybe LDP leaders like Nobuteru Ishihara have a point.

-1 ( +2 / -4 )

Why on Earth did Japan pay 80 billion yen to the U.S.A?

An air ticket to Guam is about 50,000 yen.

This would pay for 1,600,000 marines to go to Guam.

There aren’t that many on the island.

Don't tell me they are going Executive Class?

-9 ( +1 / -9 )

Get the Marines out of Japan

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Bad move. Guam is too far away.

I don't think so. Guam isn't far enough.

-6 ( +4 / -9 )

Why on Earth did Japan pay 80 billion yen to the U.S.A?

One F-35 fighter jet costs 5 billion yen. Then there's SDF salaries, uniforms, etc...

The picture getting any clearer?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

America bullying Japan and the japanese government bullying those inhabitants of Okinawa ! This is the so called 'alliance of democracies'!

-7 ( +2 / -8 )

The people of Okinawa take the bow for preventing the new air field. The government in Tokyo wants to build the new airfield but have been blocked. So the status quo remains. I do not believe for a moment the Marine move to Guam is serious. More nonsense shoveled upon nonsense. I have heard Tokyo and Washington promises my entire life.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

YuriOtani: "Just another lie by the Americans. Their goal is to build the new airfield and concede nothing. Means MCAS Futenma will have to remain open. The Marines will need their transport if they are to defend the Senkaku islands. America needs to refund the 80 billion yen to Japan."

Not at all. Japan needs to thank its lucky stars the US is hanging around to defend it, especially when morons like Ishihara are suggesting Japan builds a military base and port on the Senkaku islands -- on which topic you yourself stated the need for the US presence. Why do you flip-flop so much on this topic, Yuri?

"The people of Okinawa take the bow for preventing the new air field."

Well, if it's prevented from being built, I don't want to hear any more complaints from the people around the current airbase in regards to noise or danger, because the troops aren't going anywhere as a result of what you're bowing too.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

YuriOtani: "More nonsense shoveled upon nonsense."

You've got the Okinawa Governor's personality and words down to a T here, Yuri.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

smithinjapan, well I did not vote for him. It is more than him the anti new airfield movement is vast in Okinawa. So with the exception of a few minor bases closures nothing will change. Why does this bother you?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

smithinjapan, am giving into reality. Also I finally realized why the helicopters and Marines are on Okinawa. I never pictured the other islands needing defense. As for complaining I am just a single person who moved to get away from the noise. As I said I took your advice, any questions?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We should have never given the island back just like the Russians.

All problems would have been solved.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Just get foreign military OFF these islands.

Enough, already.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

YuriOtani: "So with the exception of a few minor bases closures nothing will change. Why does this bother you?"

Nothing about this whole things really bothers me save the usual wishy-washiness of the Japanese politicians involved, especially Hatoyama.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Obama wants a higher bid from Guam.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

johninnaha: "Just get foreign military OFF these islands."

You need them for protection, especially if people like Ishihara have their way and Japan builds a base and port on Senkaku and China decides it doesn't like it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan “annexes” islands in the late 1800s, does not ask inhabitants if they want to be annexed. Japan declares war on US. US defeats Japan in resulting war US occupies annexed islands Japan wants islands back, does not ask inhabitants if they want to go back. US give islands back with caveats. Japan happy, few foreign troops on the Emperor’s soil to remind the imperials of the lost war, all hid away down south, likes the cavaets. Annexed islands remain in Japans control as placeholder it’s Exclusive Economic Zone. US takes care of any aggressive neighbors and has to deal with the unhappy annexed islanders The US wins, Japan wins, Okinawa looses. Two out of three ain’t bad
2 ( +5 / -3 )

smithinjapan, what would you have the politicians in Tokyo do? They would have to change the law which will draw the ire of the other Prefecture governors. So what can they do? This is why the money for Guam is being withdrawn.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So they're going to build the new runway and then move the Marines to Guam? That makes absolutely zero sense! You can't have your Marines and the aircraft that support them geographically separated like that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not at all. Japan needs to thank its lucky stars the US is hanging around to defend it,

Smith, Yes Japan does. Agree with you 100%! So why are most of the bases on Okinawa? Japan needs to thank it's lucky stars, as well as take some of the burden off of Okinawa....

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

LOL maybe they're just lying to the "gaijin go home" anti base types that get flow in to protest the bases on Okinawa? "Hey guys you know when we said we were going to move those Marines to Guam? Yeah, we kinda lied and were just doing it to appease the nay sayers. Everyone else knew what was coming, we're honestly surprised that you didn't notice too.". Meanwhile, the anti-base protesters (who get paid to fly to Okinawa to protest) try to form another link around Kadena (they're notorious for protesting outside the wrong base) only to not even have it go around 1/18th of the air base and then give up after a few hours. Then they'll parade on down to the sports field in Mihama and claim that there were 90,000 protesters in attendance.......when the real numbers are more like 9,000.

No matter, there will be plenty of awamori to go around like at most base protests. So come on out! Get your drink on and pretend like you care about the bases for a few hours and then give up and go back home.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japan has already paid the U.S. about 80 billion yen to help fund the transfer of the Marines.

HUH?! this is so wrong...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Stephen JezDec. 14, 2011 - 01:07PM JST

LOL maybe they're just lying to the "gaijin go home" anti base types that get flow in to protest the bases on Okinawa?

The Okinawa people have been co-opted by both the anti-American radical element in Japan and the Okinawa politicians who use Futenma as a running platform. It all started in 1990 with the election of Ota as governor. He was really left wing, ani-American and his family owned a significant part of the land used for Futenma . He started importing radicals and activists from mainland Japan to attend rallies and “convert” the Okinawa people. The three main political parties that supported him were the Socialist, Communist, Shaminren, and Komei parties. One of the tactics they used to make Futenma an issue was to sell several thousand people a small (inches square) piece of land used for Futenma. This made it difficult for the Japanese government to deal with the large number of “landowners”. Ota also established the political model for future governors. He and his supporting political parties made it virtually impossible to get elected governor without taking an anti-base stand. This was not because it was the majority of the Okinawa peoples will, it was because of the billions of yen poured into elections from outside Okinawa to ensure the “right” candidate wins. Ever wonder how many civilians have been killed by DANGEROUS Futenma crashes? So far 0… and counting. All this is not to say there are not issues with noise and congestion around the bases, but have you noticed there has never been a referendum vote offered to the people of Okinawa to let them have their say on the bases? The outcome might be different from what the politicians and activists scream from their megaphones

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So Congress would like to send their armed forces to Guam in army surplus rubber dingies? Do the soldiers have to pay for the dinghies as well? Do they have to row them? Cutbacks are fine, but do the move properly, and stop playing games.

The US wants a base in Asia, Tokyo (maybe) wants the base in Okinawa, but the Okinawans, except maybe some of the businesses, want the US out. I have no answer to these conflicts, but if the decision is to move, then funds to make the move need to be there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani VoiceOfOkinawa OkinawaMike

I'm sorry guys but the U.S Congress just "Rick AshleyED" you.

Some of you know what I mean by that but some might not. It just means the U.S military isn't going to give Okinawa up.

Don't get me wrong. I want what you want. An independent Japan that does it's own protection of it's borders. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress isn't so naive to just let that happen.

There's a saying that we all know. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. By golly, the U.S and Japan are real close, aren't we. Unlike Japan's government, America's leaders tend to think about the future of their grandchildren. They'd like to make sure that another Pearl Harbor never happens again.

The Americans are smarter than you are willing to admit in a blog. Think about it.

Would you ever turn your back on someone that sucker punched you? So yeah, maybe the U.S stays in Japan for multiple reasons. You could always buy them off though. How about another 80 Billion yen to hit the road?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Now imagine how much the US would save if it just shut the base down altogether! Its not like the US does not have hundreds more around the world, is it?"

Ideally, this sounds like a great idea, but then again, it would mean a whole lot of military personnel sudddenly without jobs landing on a U.S. economy still struggling against a 8.6% unemployment. Not good for the U.S. economy since the military has for all intents and purposes become a significant employer in its own right.

While I can understand the need to save money, it still doesn't bode well for American policy makers to renege on promises made to a staunch ally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does Japan's rule of 'Okinawa' has legitimacy in history? Did the inhabitants willfully to submit their isles under the rules of Tokyo? Japan's rule of Okinawa was no difference like Germany invasion of Czechkoslovakia! One of the world's most notorious actions but forgotton willfully!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The US bases are not in Okinawa to protect Okinawa. They are here to protect Honshu. If there were an attack, it would come to Okinawa first. The US bases are in Okinawa to draw fire from mainland Japan. It would be MUCH safer without them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

johninnaha: "If there were an attack,"

You're contradicting yourself. They're there to protect ALL of Japan, and Okinawa is the location of the most importance, strategically. If/when Okinawa is attacked of COURSE they're going to fight to protect it, not just Honshu.

" It would be MUCH safer without them."

Without them you'd already be lifting your head every morning with a red flag with one big star and four little ones, singing the Chinese national anthem.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Why do they need funds to move ? Maybe we could help them pack their stuff, bring old things to recycle center, board the ferries.

They are here to protect Honshu.

False. They were here to protect against Honshu. I remind you that, unless we go back over 1500 yr ago in history, the only attacker and invader of Japanese islands that ever existed is the US. Surely in 45 nobody in Okinawa nor in Japan asked "please Americans protect us". It's a total theory that Honshu/Japan would need protection. Even if, it's hard to believe the jietai are not able for the task. Now the bases are kept because the US army presence in Asia p*sses off the Chinese, North-Koreans and everybody else. But that protects nada. That was proven (Vietnam for instance) that the US army is unable to prevent China from whatever. Also that's true that gives employment and scholarships to a large number of American youth, at reduced cost of the US taxpayer, since they ransom us in Japan. So in Guam, that would be more costly.

Without them you'd already be lifting your head every morning with a red flag with one big star and four little ones, singing the Chinese national anthem.

Like the Taiwanese do ?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Just get foreign military OFF these islands. Enough, already."

Easier said than done. Kick America out and China is next in line to take her place. Korea has a grudge to bear against Japan too and would like a piece of the pie if she doesnt have to contend with China so Korea is 2nd in line. Russia wouldnt mind having her fair share either. Russia is 3rd in line. There are a lot of hungry, grudge bearing lions salivating and waiting for the chance to leap and devour once the US is gone. If Japan had not made so many enemies throughout Asia, it would be easier to kick the US out, but the fact is Japan has no friends but a lot of enemies all around her so she depends on the US to maintain some degree of national independence.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'd love to see Japan try and pay the real cost of self defense. Considering the neighbourhood and the neighbours, Japan's military budget would need to triple overnight, if not more. A good 'stimulus' for the economy, though. Plus, what happens if JSDF members replace Americans in Okinawa, and there still is crime? Kick the JSDF out too?

Personally, I have no problem with the US pulling back in a number of countries. Too much warmongering in the past 100 years, especially by Democratic presidents who want to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Riffraff,

The Okinawa people have been co-opted by both the anti-American radical element in Japan and the Okinawa politicians who use Futenma as a running platform.

So why do you think Okinawan politicians are able to 'use Futenma as a running platform'? Because Okinawans are so happy with the 38 US military facilities on their island?

It all started in 1990 with the election of Ota as governor. He was really left wing, ani-American and his family owned a significant part of the land used for Futenma . He started importing radicals and activists from mainland Japan to attend rallies and convert the Okinawa people.

Riffraff, do we get you right, you see Okinawans as: easy to manipulate, not able to understand what is good for them, not ready for democracy folks, eh?

I suppose they need someone like YOU to tell them what is good for them?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

but have you noticed there has never been a referendum vote offered to the people of Okinawa to let them have their say on the bases?

You are wrong, Riffraff, there has been a plebiscite in Nago city in 1997 in which Nago citizens clearly voted against the construction of the new US base in Henoko.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just another lie by the Americans. Their goal is to build the new airfield and concede nothing. Means MCAS Futenma will have to remain open. The Marines will need their transport if they are to defend the Senkaku islands. America needs to refund the 80 billion yen to Japan.

Had to laugh at this. I TOLD you this was going to happen. If there's no movement of the base (as agreed to by the Japanese government), there's no reason to move 8,000 troops to Guam (as agreed to by the U.S. government pending a successful base relocation). Okinawans failed to realize this and ended up looking ridiculous by impeding a deal where they would get 1/3 of the hated Americans off their island. Now they get NONE off their island. Congratulations! We'd send you an invitation to the celebratory party, but we understand you are convalescing in the hospital after a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot.

Re: the 80 million yen... That was spent on infrastructure improvement on Guam so that the island could handle an influx of 8,000 additional soldiers and their families. It didn't just go into some bank account. I think the people who caused the money to be wasted should be the ones who should pay the government of Japan back. Let's see, that would be the prefectural government of Okinawa. Open your wallets!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fadamor, most Okinawan people do not hate Americans. It is there are so many of them and their bases hinder our road system. Then Tokyo and Washington come up with a plan without our input and expect the Okinawan people to give their quiet obedient submission. Well it has been 15 years since the first NO and they have not learned. OH FYI most people in the protests are Okinawan people, not Japanese. Do the math dude, It would take about 10 747s to move 5000 to Okinawa. 50,000 people would make the number 100 and the airline does not have that many. Then add in the elections, the "pro base" candidates have gone down in defeat. NetNinja, if the American government considers Japan as foes then Japan should consider America a foe. Nothing worse than letting a foe freely in your camp. Though I do not think America thinks Japan is a foe. Please stop spreading misinformation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well it might be important to move military bases out of Okinawa, especially for old people, but at the same time Okinawan people are used to living together with U.S military bases. I work at a restaurant by camp Futenma, and about 90% of customers are military people. There also are a lot of Okinawan people who work on base which means there would be a big number of unemployed people in Okinawa if they move to Guam. I'm sure that almost every stores, bars and restaurants near Futenma will be disappeared and the economy will get worse... I'm just scared. 80 billion yen is a lot btw.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not all of the Americans would have left under the agreement. Only about 1/3 would have relocated off the island. The remaining 2/3 would have still been there to patronize the stores and shops. Ginowan City (including the restaurant you work at) would have been the exception as they would have lost practically all of their American customers. Now you don't need to worry as all the Americans are staying. WOOT!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fadamor, most Okinawan people do not hate Americans. It is there are so many of them and their bases hinder our road system.

Wikipedia lists the September 2009 population of Okinawa Prefecture at 1,384,762 (includes American servicemen and their families). Taking the 25,000 servicemen and we'll add another 25,000 to represent their spouses and any children gives us roughly 50,000 Americans out of a population of 1,384,762. That works out to a whopping 3% of the population. When a prefecture finds only 3% of their population objectionable to the point of stating that "there are so many of them", then "hate" is the appropriate term. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Fadamor, it is not the amount of protestors but the people who do not show up. Most people are too busy to attend. Look at the elections in the past years. Give me the names of the "pro base" politicians in Okinawa.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There may be a small fringe of shops/restaurants that service the US military around the bases that don't want the military to leave, but the vast majority of Okinawans want their land returned.

Especially with Kadena, if you don't have a pass, you have to make a huge detour to get around it. Another thing that annoys Okinawans is the waste of space. Kadena could be condensed into one tenth of the space it uses.

And in the long run, returning this land to Okinawa would make far more money for its people. Those areas that had been US bases and that have been handed back are making big money for the island - Shintoshin in Naha, Hamby Town in Chatan and so on. Giving back this land would provide jobs, housing and increased business that Okinawa desperately needs.

I don't think Okinawans hate Americans. They are too laid back to hate anyone particularly. Very few of the military speak any Japanese and many never go a kilometer or so beyond the gates. They don't speak the same language, they don't drink the same drinks or eat the same food.

So, what do they do for Okinawa? Nothing. They are apparently here to defend, but no one's attacking or likely to. China wouldn't attack. Why would it? What would it stand to gain? It would lose its biggest trading partners if it did and it knows it.

There is absolutely no reason to have foreign bases on Okinawan soil.

If they're going to Guam, fine. Just get on with it, please.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan took Okinawa by force in 1874, Japan has no legitimacy to rule those isles! What they are kicking around over the relocation of foreign garrison issue was a political little trick to stirup nationalism! Feeling victimized among the populations is good to gain 'sympathy' for politicans in Tokyo! Yes, Japan was the world biggest victim of WW2, the battle of Okinawa was a tragedy surpassed Najiang Massacre, Stalingrad,Korean war, Vietnam war...etc combined!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

To NetNinja on his post dated Dec. 14, 2011 - 02:13PM JST :

You finally revealed your true self, admitting very frankly that the U.S. forces are stationed here not to let the genie out of the bottle. Well said, NetNinja. But if so, why does the U.S. keep telling the Japanese people that the U.S. military presence is for Japan's defense and therefore that Japan must shoulder more than 70% of its maintenance cost in the name of "host nation support"? And $6.9 billion of the total 10.27 billion for the relocation of 8,000 marines to Guam that is essentially the U.S. Pacific Forces realignment or house cleaning? Tokyo has already paid the U.S. coffer about 80 billion yen to help fund the transfer.

A U.S. military brass (Are you one?) said a few years ago the same thing as you post here. Naturally, Washington was quite embarrassed at his "faux pas" and chastised him severely. But I think he told the truth.

Is it because the Japanese people, from a prime minister down to a man in the street, are gullible characters in your eyes as you say, "[t]he Americans are smarter than you are willing to admit"? Cheating is not unusual in international politics, said former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his farewell news conference in June. So you think the Japanese are all cheated in this realignment issue?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There may be a small fringe of shops/restaurants that service the US military around the bases that don't want the military to leave, but the vast majority of Okinawans want their land returned.

I would agree - to a point. In my experience, "most" Okinawa people want "most" US facilities reduced, but I have met few that desire all the bases to close (other than the small, far-left wing, anti-US elites). They understand what an economic shock that would be. And with that said, the quickest way to make that happen is to execute the existing 2006 ATARA agreement that would relocate Futenma and close and return all the current facilities south of Kadena.

Especially with Kadena, if you don't have a pass, you have to make a huge detour to get around it. Another thing that annoys Okinawans is the waste of space. Kadena could be condensed into one tenth of the space it uses.

No it couldn't - realigning other base assets to Kadena has been long studied and looked at with a conclusion that no additional space exists. If you have a detailed, workable option, please provide it. Also, please ask the Kadena-cho mayor his view of moving more assets to Kadena AB - please post the answer you get here.

And in the long run, returning this land to Okinawa would make far more money for its people. Those areas that had been US bases and that have been handed back are making big money for the island - Shintoshin in Naha, Hamby Town in Chatan and so on. Giving back this land would provide jobs, housing and increased business that Okinawa desperately needs.

I totally agree - and again, the quickest and easiest way to do that would be to implement the already agreed upon provisions of the 2006 ATARA agreement.

I don't think Okinawans hate Americans. They are too laid back to hate anyone particularly. Very few of the military speak any Japanese and many never go a kilometer or so beyond the gates. They don't speak the same language, they don't drink the same drinks or eat the same food.

A broad distortion and typical stereotyping. US military personnel on Okinawa are integrated into the local community as much as, if not more, than local communities back in the US. And not just the immediate areas around the bases - throughout the island. I've lived near almost every US base in Japan and can attest that US military members in Okinawa are much more integrated with their local off-base communities than bases near Tokyo.

So, what do they do for Okinawa? Nothing. They are apparently here to defend, but no one's attacking or likely to.

Inaccurate premise. US forces on Okinawa are not stationed there to "defend the island" - Misawa is not defending Aomori, nor is Yokosuka defending Tokyo. US forces are stationed in Japan to assist in the defense of Japan, consistent with the US-Japan Security Treaty. Besides defending Japan, they promote regional stability, and assist in Humanitarian and Disaster Relief efforts. More to the point, they are here because the host governments want them here.

A contrarian view would also say that the US-Japan Security Treaty not only defends Japan, but it also prevents Japan from once again re-militarizing - and perhaps that is the real "unspoken" objective of the treaty...

China wouldn't attack. Why would it? What would it stand to gain? It would lose its biggest trading partners if it did and it knows it.

Given China was a typical western democracy, I might share that view, but it is not - it is a Communist dictatorship who's primary, overarching goal is for the communist party to remain in power - and they will do anything to achieve that goal, to include provoking nationalism and emotional "lashing out" to deflect internal problems and pressures on the regime.

Your assessment is also not shared by the Japanese government, who may have more foreign intelligence assets available than you do. I'm equally quite certain that if you asked the leaders of Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and Australia, their opinion of the threat from China it would not match yours.

There is absolutely no reason to have foreign bases on Okinawan soil.

If you believe so, then do something about it - go advocate that position to your elected representative or petition your cause through the Japanese courts - take some action - that's the only way you are going to get the result you desire.

If they're going to Guam, fine. Just get on with it, please.

Yes, let's get on with the 2006 Agreement so we can see some real, meaningful reduction in the US military footprint - a win-win for both governments and the local prefectural people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

lincolnman, nobody from Okinawa signed the 2006 agreement. It was clear to Tokyo the people of Okinawa were against the agreement. No American state would tolerate this sort of treatment. At 900,000 dollars American per soldier the move to Guam is too expensive. What the frack costs so much to house the troops? Been to Guam is is sort of a dull place catering to tourists from Japan. Lots of bars and a beach, not a lot more except bases like Anderson. It is a big mostly empty place. Lots of space for 10 thousand Marines and their families. Did some math and they are spending 50 thousand dollars for each person on Guam. Am against this agreement because it just STINKS. A big payoff to the Americans with not much to show for it. Not one base really closes, they are just moved around a bit. Migrating north like a bird.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To lincolnman:

"A contrarian view would also say that the US-Japan Security Treaty not only defends Japan, but it also prevents Japan from once again re-militarizing - and perhaps that is the real "unspoken" objective of the treaty..." (Quoted from your Dec. 15, 2011 - 05:34PM JST post)

So you agree with NetNinja, who says that the U.S. forces are stationed in Japan not to let the genie out of the bottle. For now, it's "the threats" a rising China and a nuclear-armed North Korea pose that can justify this large military presence. But you hint the ultimate reason is a militaristic Japan. In other words, the U.S. intends to maintain those 33 bases plus a number of water areas and airspaces for exclusive use by the U.S. military and permanently keep Japan under semi-occupation.

You again bring up the 2006 Roadmap or what you call ATARA agreement and retort that by executing it all the 6 facilities south of Kadena will be returned to Okinawa and with it an economic boon.

We had discussed this issue in another thread already and you couldn't clarify the moot questions I pointed out. They are returned only when their replacements are built within Okinawa. Some facilities may be consolidated with existing facilities -- like Futenma, that would be relocated to Henoko and partially consolidated with Camp Hansen.

But as for the other facilities that are subject to "total return", negotiations will be held about details of how to consolidate them with existing facilities or relocate them to new sites north of Kadena. The return of Naha Military Port has been stalled for many years because both sides couldn't reach an agreement. The same with Futenma, the best-known case for a "total return".. So you can imagine what would happen to the other 4 facilities. That is why I say the probability is quite high that they wouldn't be returned after all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yuriotani stated (in part):

Fadamor, most Okinawan people do not hate Americans. It is there are so many of them and their bases hinder our road system.

Fadamor replied:

Wikipedia lists the September 2009 population of Okinawa Prefecture at 1,384,762 (includes American servicemen and their families). Taking the 25,000 servicemen and we'll add another 25,000 to represent their spouses and any children gives us roughly 50,000 Americans out of a population of 1,384,762. That works out to a whopping 3% of the population. When a prefecture finds only 3% of their population objectionable to the point of stating that "there are so many of them", then "hate" is the appropriate term. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Yuriotani countered:

Fadamor, it is not the amount of protestors but the people who do not show up. Most people are too busy to attend. Look at the elections in the past years. Give me the names of the "pro base" politicians in Okinawa.

Apples and oranges, Yuri. I'm talking how you consider only 3% of your population to be "so many of them" and you're making some excuse about why there aren't that many protestors who show up (at some unspecified event). I've never discussed or implied that Okinawans don't want the Americans off the island.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

VoiceOfOkinawa and other Okinawa supporters - You must never forget that I'm NOT exactly on your side BUT....BUT....we share a common goal.

As most of you already know, I prefer "living room" talk. It's not always going to be pretty stuff you want to hear. I'm not trying to misinform anyone either, Yuri.

VoiceOfOkinawa - I say what I believe and it doesn't represent what the people at the top are thinking. The naval officer you spoke of who was reprimanded and lost his post....I forgot his name.....At a university and spoke his mind about Okinawa's government.. I know who you are talking about. Anyway, I think he told the truth too.

Lets be fair okay. Be honest with ourselves so we can achieve honest debate. You're emotional, this is personal. It's hard to be objective but I can be. I got nothing invested in your problems other than my tax dollars. So hear me out.

I'm aware of the officer that you mentioned in your earlier post. Although what he said may have offended you....AND....AND....it wasn't done very tactfully.....It IS however....still to your benefit and your argument. You see......you and me and YuriOtani (I'll include her), we can't be in the "Future of Okinawa" conference room. We really don't know IF the politicians are serving our common goals. All that stuff happens in back rooms with little or no transparency.

I only ask this of you. Remember, I'm NOT against you....I'm with you for the common goal of removing U.S forces from Japan cause IN MY personal experiences your nation has treated me and my friends like poo poo. I'm NOT going to talk down to you. If my opinion posts are all you have to support your argument then you're worse off than I thought.

It is to your benefit that I and others here speak our minds as Americans, Canadians, British, Australians and Mexicans. You'll get honesty from me. I'll tell you just how I see it. The only thing you CAN'T do is think I'm an official from my government cause I'm not. I'm a regular guy.....*like you.

Anyway, as always, good luck to you. You have your battles to fight and I have mine. I wish you luck. It seems like your battle to liberate Okinawa is on multiple fronts. You have the government of Japan and the U.S. Must be hard to know which one is being straight up and honest with you.

My advice is never burn bridges with people. If you are getting honesty from anyone, value it, don't attack it.

*Maybe not like you. Nobody drinks as much RedBull as I do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yuri-san

Not one base really closes, they are just moved around a bit. Migrating north like a bird.

Put down the “kool aid”…. You’ve been spending too much time in “Elite Word” and you’re losing touch with the “real world.” Under the 2006 ATARA agreement, Futenma, Kinser, Lester and parts of Foster are closing and being returned to the local government – only Futenma is being relocated north of Kadena. Don’t believe the fairy tales propagated by VOO and Bamboo.

And if you don’t believe me – do what I have implored VOO to do – confirm it yourself – contact the Base Affairs section of the Okinawa Prefectural government – or send an e-mail to the Treaty Division of MOFA – they’ll tell you what I have said is fact.

One other thing – I’m confused. In the article “ Chinese Send Patrol Ship to Disputed Waters”;

Yuriotani Dec. 15, 2011 - 12:12AM JST The islands belong to Okinawa and at this time it is a part of Japan. War will happen when one or more countries makes a mistake. The Chinese are gearing their population for war with propaganda. Either the Americans will support Japan or not. If they do not support Japan then article 9 has to go and with that the Americans. Time to rearm and add the dreaded deterrent force. Why would they risk their cities for Japanese cities? This is a crossroads in history. There is a lot more at stake than a few small islands.

These seem like rather divergent views – above you envision a war with China occurring and you’re asking the US to militarily back up Japan’s claims to the Senkakus, but in this post you’re telling the US military to pack up and leave Okinawa. I don’t get it…….

And are you really serious when you say Japan should produce nuclear weapons?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is why I say the probability is quite high that they wouldn't be returned after all.

And you are absolutely wrong – and if anyone is guilty of spreading propaganda, it is you, who has consistently preached this distortion and fairy tale about the 2006 Agreement, even when we have implored you to fact check it with your own government (MOFA and OPP) – something you either refuse to do, or have done and were told your view is incorrect.

And I believe you still owe several of us an apology over your insults and personal attacks in the article…"Okinawa governor tells Gemba SOFA revision separate from base issue."

We’re waiting……….

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not one base really closes, they are just moved around a bit. Migrating north like a bird.

Yuri, put down the “kool aid”…. You’ve been spending too much time in “Elite Word” and you’re losing touch with the “real world.” Under the 2006 ATARA agreement, Futenma, Kinser, Lester and parts of Foster are closing and being returned to the local government – only Futenma is being relocated north of Kadena. Don’t believe the fairy tales and conspiracy theorists.

And if I didn't convince you, do what I have implored others to do – confirm it yourself – contact the Base Affairs section of the Okinawa Prefectural government – or send an e-mail to the Treaty Division of MOFA – they’ll tell you what I have said is fact.

One other thing – I’m confused. In the article “ Chinese Send Patrol Ship to Disputed Waters”;

Yuriotani Dec. 15, 2011 - 12:12AM JST The islands belong to Okinawa and at this time it is a part of Japan. War will happen when one or more countries makes a mistake. The Chinese are gearing their population for war with propaganda. Either the Americans will support Japan or not. If they do not support Japan then article 9 has to go and with that the Americans. Time to rearm and add the dreaded deterrent force. Why would they risk their cities for Japanese cities? This is a crossroads in history. There is a lot more at stake than a few small islands.

These seem like rather divergent views – above you envision a war with China occurring and you’re asking the US to militarily back up Japan’s claims to the Senkakus, but in this post you’re telling the US military to pack up and leave Okinawa.

I don’t get it…….

0 ( +0 / -0 )

80 billion yen ? Actually, it's far too cheap! not only people like to say " no free luunch...", but also I would like to say that Japan got the "protection service" deserve minimum 80 billion USD per year !! how can some people complain hereabove? It's like someone enjoyed 5-star hotel service and later on ask hotel manager: why your meal in more expensive than the samething 7-Eleven provided? Moreover, This "big brother" behind your so you only can talk loudly around neighborhood! How much more you should pay for that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No surprise here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

smith, NetNinja, Fadamore and myself should all leave Japan alone.

We (USA) are not welcomed in Japan. I have witnessed enough sufferings of US soldiers while Japanese have no clue to understand our pain after 4500 casualties, 32,000 disabilities veterans and almost 1 trillion dollar spending over Iraq. Leave Japan as they wish, and let them go back to the dust. There are a bunch of spineless Japanese who are not ready. Let them see what's like including moron Ishihara. His son should go to war, not us.

I have seen enough,I do not want to see any more pain, no more. Bye, bye, Japan, you are on your own. Send all spineless Japanese including Uyoku (radical righwingers of Japan) to go to the front line. Enough said from U.S.A.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Do you expect sympathy?

No sympathy. It was a Bush War. It has never been approved. . We are not sending our sons and daughters to Japan, PERIOD. You are on your own. We have enough, enough, enough, enough. Let's leave everythng to moron Ishihara .He will do his job taking Japan into the war., I assure you..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

NetNinja, am sad that you have been mistreated in Japan, does that include Okinawa? So give me the skinny, who did what to you? You must understand that many people including moi never believed the American when they said they will close the bases or move the Marines. There is always another condition to be meet. Their function has to be replaced on Okinawa first and my guess is the new airfield is not enough. If it is finished nothing will get closed or moved. I have live around American my entire life and I know their tricks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have witnessed enough sufferings of US soldiers while Japanese have no clue to understand our pain after 4500 casualties, 32,000 disabilities veterans and almost 1 trillion dollar spending over Iraq. Leave Japan as they wish, and let them go back to the dust. There are a bunch of spineless Japanese who are not ready.

To globalwatcher

Globalwatche has every reason. The Japanese of the present generation,are more concerned at enjoying the sakura blossom,than protecting their own nation. Just when this country is back to ashes again the japanese people will wake up to reality.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

issa1, that happened in another country. The Okinawa people know about death and destruction. 100,000 plus civilians dead, so much of the land and infrastructure in ruins. Then the occupation of our country by foreign troops that continues to this day. So what part of America was invaded and is occupied by the "foe"?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To globalwatcher

Globalwatche has every reason. The Japanese of the present generation,are more concerned at enjoying the sakura blossom,than protecting their own nation. Just when this country is back to ashes again the japanese people will wake up to reality.

issa1, I am glad you understand my point of view where it comes from. When you lose your loving neighbor's son to war, and neighbor's husband with one leg lost and is suffering for rehab, you truly understand if this is worth it.

Japanese young people including Ishihara have been very spoiled in peace, while we are suffering too much in the process. Many Okinawans want US troops out and they are not willing to defend themselves make me to conclude Okinawans are not worth defending. Shame for me to come to this conclusions. More and more Americans are sharing the same view as mine. FYI

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcher, issa1 and their supporters:

I think the Iraq War has been essentially George W. Bush's war. He started launching an attack on Iraq even though there was not enough evidence to convince the world community for attacking the country. His justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein was a lunatic who was piling up the weapons of mass destruction and, with a close connection with Al-Qaida, might attack the U.S. anytime in the near future. All this proved to be false.

Now the Iraq war, which lasted nearly nine years, is about to end, leaving 4,500 American fatalities and reportedly more than 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, after the U.S. taxpayers' money amounting to $1 trillion has been wasted like hell. And don't forget Iraqi soil’s total devastation, either.

It is very strange and off the mark, then, that globalwatcher, issa1 and others are faulting Okinawa for not supporting the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan as if to say Okinawa was to blame for all this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The last sentence should be:

It is very strange and off the mark, then, that globalwatcher, issa1 and others are faulting Okinawa for not supporting the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan as if to say Okinawa was to blame for all this disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No voiceofokinawa, not at all. You guys defend yourself. We will get hell out of Okinawa. You need to be ready to defend yourself, What you hear from the governments are politically correct remarks, but they do not reflect what is really in Americans mind. We have no desire to defend Japan. No oil, no resources, no gains.. That's reality, sorry to say. It is nort worth fighting for you guys. LOL

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To globalwathcer:

Washington's official line is the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan. You say that does not reflect "what is really in Americans' mind." That is, you want to say that the U.S. forces are unwillingly stationed in Japan because Japan requests it.

Now, there's a third view from Okinawa where the bulk of U.S. bases in Japan concentrate. To us, those bases are remnants of WWII. The U.S. military took private land by force in violation of international law. These bases are therefore the direct descendants of WWII occupation forces: spoils of the war, that is. To deny it and say that they are for Japan's defense is a sham.

You believe what the U.S. government says is true but argue that the U.S. doesn't need to defend Japan. All right. Then, why don't you join us in our campaign for reducng this excessive U.S. military footprint from Okinawa. For starters, let's prevent the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan from being executed. For us, the plan is based on a sham and, for you, the U.S. doesn't need need to defend Japan. Let's work together.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

(Resubmitted) To globalwatcher:

Washington's official line is the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan. You say that does not reflect "what is really in Americans' mind." That is, you want to say that the U.S. forces are unwillingly stationed in Japan because Japan requests it.

Now, there's a third view from Okinawa where the bulk of U.S. bases in Japan concentrate. For us, those bases are remnants of WWII. The U.S. military took private land by force in violation of international law. These bases thus represent an uninterrupted continuation of the WWII occupation forces' spoils of war or stolen goods. To deny it and say that they are offered to the U.S. military for Japan's defense is a sham.

You believe what the U.S. government says is true but argue that the U.S. doesn't need to defend Japan. All right. Then, why don't you join us in our campaign for reducng this excessive U.S. military footprint from Okinawa? For starters, let's prevent the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan from being executed and eliminate Futenma itself completely. For us, the relocation plan is based on a sham and, for you, the U.S. doesn't need to defend Japan. Gracious, we have a common ground. Let's work together.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Washington's official line is the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan

More importantly, that's your government's official position also.....by the way, what have you done to try to change it?

Now, there's a third view from Okinawa where the bulk of U.S. bases in Japan concentrate. For us, those bases are remnants of WWII. The U.S. military took private land by force in violation of international law. These bases thus represent an uninterrupted continuation of the WWII occupation forces' spoils of war or stolen goods. To deny it and say that they are offered to the U.S. military for Japan's defense is a sham

And what have you done to prove this "sham" and bring about any real change for the Okinawa people?

All right. Then, why don't you join us in our campaign for reducng this excessive U.S. military footprint from Okinawa? For starters, let's prevent the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan from being executed and eliminate Futenma itself completely.

And what is your action plan to do that?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is, you want to say that the U.S. forces are unwillingly stationed in Japan because Japan requests it.

There are many Americans who believe like I do. We want all US overseas bases to be closed and we are in process doing that. It is happening.

Then, why don't you join us in our campaign for reducng this excessive U.S. military footprint from Okinawa?

Why should we? It is YOU who need to take care of it. Okinawa is not a prefecture of USA.

Well, voiceofokinawa, NK has just lost a leader and we are evaluatng the situation right now. A short range missle has just gone off. US troops in SK and Okinawa have been placed under alert. You need to defend Okinawa just in case. Hope you are ready, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa, you are trying to pull US into this mess. I say NO, NO, NO. You have a NURVE, voiceofokinawa. You deal with it. I assure you USA will not get involved. This is between Okinawa and Nagatacho. You tell your boss in Nagatacho you are willing to surrender your social benefits;walfare, nenkin (social security), national healthcare, rent money from Tokyo. We are absolutely careless what you do. .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To lincolnman:

I wrote: "Washington's official line is that the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan." As for it, you say "that's your government's official position also." That's quite true. That is not only the Japanese government's but also mainstream Japanese politicians' thinking.

For example, LDP's Secretary-General Nobuteru Ishihara has just met and told leading figures in Washington that his party would endeavor to help implement the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan as agreed to between the two governments. He also told reporters that, above anything else, the Japan-U.S. relations counted most for Japan. Compared with this, Okinawa's objection is very, very small, he wants to say.

So our battle against this excessive U.S. military presence is two-fronted. My posts are therefore being directed not only at Washington but also at Tokyo if they ever read them.

Lincolnman, you say: "And what have you done to prove this "sham" and bring about any real change for the Okinawa people?"

Did you disprove my claim that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated land whereby the U.S. has no legitimate right to demand a replacement when asked for its return?

You say: "And what is your action plan to do that?"

Are you instigating me to violence? Surely, there will be violence if this relocation plan is to be forcefully implemented. So no taunting, please.

To globalwatcher:

You say: "There are many Americans who believe like I do. We want all US overseas bases to be closed and we are in process doing that. It is happening."

That's great. But why hasn't that happened in Okinawa? Don't you think 33 bases plus a considerable number of water areas and air spaces in Okinawa too many?

Globalwatcher, to my suggestion to join in our campaign to reduce this excessive military presence, you say: "Why should we? It is YOU who need to take care of it. Okinawa is not a prefecture of USA."

But you said "Okinawans are not worth defending" and so the U.S. military should leave Japan (Okinawa). If you really think so, there's enough reasons for you to call on your military to come home immediately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Globalwatcher, to my suggestion to join in our campaign to reduce this excessive military presence, you say: "Why should we? It is YOU who need to take care of it. Okinawa is not a prefecture of USA."

But you said "Okinawans are not worth defending" and so the U.S. military should leave Japan (Okinawa). If you really think so, there's enough reasons for you to call on your military to come home immediately.

Again, I am careless what you do. Please leave us (usa) alone from this mess. Again, Okinawa is not a prefecture of USA. Okay? Okinawa is not worth defending as long as people like you are in Okinawa. I would be very happy when Japanese govt eventually strip all benefits from you guys and you need to issue your own passport of Ryukyu to visit Japan. No more direct flight between Japan and Naha, No more ship going to Okinawa. How about that. I think US and Japan have been very nice to you over 15 years. I have been advocating US bases in Okinawa. Enough is enough to your nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I will begin advocating stripping all benefits from Okinawans:

1)No Social Security 2)No National Health Care 3)No Welfare 4)No money for land use for base 5)No funding to schools 6)No funding to infrastructures 7)No funding to hospitals 8)No funding to enforcing and emergency services 9)No funding for broadcastings and communications 10)No funding for commerce development 11)No funding aircontrolling

I can list more and more if you wish, voiceofokinawa. You sure have been advocating for all people of Okinawa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher:

You don't seem to be aware of how strange and eccentric your argument is. Suppose some unwelcome guest kept causing trouble to you, squatting your land and making noises day and night, and when told to stop all this, could he say "Please leave us (usa) alone from this mess"? That's a wiard argument indeed.

And you list social benefits and governmental funding for some public projects and say: "Well, I will begin advocating stripping all benefits from Okinawans" because we are opposed to what the central government is about to do.

This is another odd argument of yours. Aren't there any citizens in the U.S. who are opposed to and demonstrate against some policy of the Federal government? In that case, can you ever say, "Strip their social benefits and all. They aren't worth a U.S. citizen."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You want to be independent from Japan. So that's what you deserve. NOTHING. No nothing from either from US and Japan. PERIOD. You better take my word to the bank.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aren't there any citizens in the U.S. who are opposed to and demonstrate against some policy of the Federal government?

We disagree with many issues here in US, that is a healthy process in democracy while you are talking about being independent from Japan. That's totally different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, voiceofokinawa, NK has just lost a leader and we are evaluatng the situation right now. A short range missle has just gone off. US troops in SK and Okinawa have been placed under alert.

Japan is closer to NK then we are. It would make sense if more of the bases were in Japan rather than Okinawa, ya think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To global watcher:

I am discussing the problem as a Japanese citizen. It is my belief that Japan hasn't recovered complete independence from the WW II U.S. occupation as yet, mentally and physically. Regrettably, Japan is a half independent nation, or a vassal of the U.S., to be more precise. You and your ilk want the status quo for good, no doubt. But we are different. Okinawa's voice represents a sharp thorn pierced to this abnormal bilateral relationship. In other words, our cause is not just for ourselves but also for the genuine independence of Japan from the U.S. domination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa, I have been following your posts in the past. That's not what you have been saying. I recommend you may want to go back to your own posts to examine what you have been saying on JT. 15 years of gridlock is nonsense.Enough, enough, enough of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher:

I've saying the same thing constantly. So it surprises me that you think otherwise. Show me any contradictory remarks I made in this thread or others. I have all records of my posts in my file.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To lincolnman: I wrote: "Washington's official line is that the U.S. military presence in Japan is for the defense of Japan." As for it, you say "that's your government's official position also." That's quite true. That is not only the Japanese government's but also mainstream Japanese politicians' thinking. For example, LDP's Secretary-General Nobuteru Ishihara has just met and told leading figures in Washington that his party would endeavor to help implement the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan as agreed to between the two governments. He also told reporters that, above anything else, the Japan-U.S. relations counted most for Japan. Compared with this, Okinawa's objection is very, very small, he wants to say. So our battle against this excessive U.S. military presence is two-fronted. My posts are therefore being directed not only at Washington but also at Tokyo if they ever read them.

Nonresponsive to the question. I asked what are YOU doing to change that position?

Lincolnman, you say: "And what have you done to prove this "sham" and bring about any real change for the Okinawa people?" Did you disprove my claim that Futenma sits on illegally confiscated land whereby the U.S. has no legitimate right to demand a replacement when asked for its return?

I made no comment on YOUR claim - I asked you are YOU doing regarding YOUR claim. You need to read more closely……

You say: "And what is your action plan to do that?" Are you instigating me to violence? Surely, there will be violence if this relocation plan is to be forcefully implemented. So no taunting, please.

You keep mentioning violence - is that the strategy you are advocating? That concerns me as someone who advocates violence is a terrorist.

By the way, I also noticed in 18 lines of text, you managed to avoid and evade answering all three of my questions…….

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman:

You accuse me by saying: "Nonresponsive to the question. I asked what are YOU doing to change that position?"

As an ordinary citizen, I try to keep sending what I believe is Okinawa's majority voice. Do you expect me to do more than that?

You say you made no comment on my claim about Futenma's status -- the claim that Futenma sits on the land illegally confiscated in violation of international law (Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land)

But if you insist the U.S. can demand Futenma's replacement in Henoko, you must answer on what legal basis the U.S. can demand it. Don't say you are not a lawyer. I am not, either. This is a forum for free discussion, as you know. I want you to answer that question clearly and concisely as someone advocating the U.S. policy regarding this Futenma issue.

You keep asking me what my action plan is. Is that so serious a question? I am not a policy maker. That's all there is to it.

You say: "By the way, I also noticed in 18 lines of text, you managed to avoid and evade answering all three of my questions……".

No, no. I never evade your questions. It's you who are avoiding to answer my questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman: you accuse me by saying: "Nonresponsive to the question. I asked what are YOU doing to change that position?" As an ordinary citizen, I try to keep sending what I believe is Okinawa's majority voice. Do you expect me to do more than that?

Only if you actually believe in what you claim and have the strength of your convictions. Posting in this forum does absolutely nothing to change anything. Advocating to your elected representative or pursuing legal action results in real change. Look up the English phrase "sitting on the sidelines"......

You say you made no comment on my claim about Futenma's status -- the claim that Futenma sits on the land illegally confiscated in violation of international law (Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land) But if you insist the U.S. can demand Futenma's replacement in Henoko, you must answer on what legal basis the U.S. can demand it. Don't say you are not a lawyer. I am not, either. This is a forum for free discussion, as you know. I want you to answer that question clearly and concisely as someone advocating the U.S. policy regarding this Futenma issue.

I gave you an answer at least five times – as your mind is closed, it just wasn’t the one you wanted to hear – that's your problem, not mine.

You keep asking me what my action plan is. Is that so serious a question? I am not a policy maker. That's all there is to it.

It’s a very serious question, and I can’t begin to understand how you could think otherwise. If you are serious about what you say, then you should be doing something to try to achieve that result. But you do nothing other than post distorted and inaccurate info on these boards. Again, go look up the phrase “strength of your convictions”

You say: "By the way, I also noticed in 18 lines of text, you managed to avoid and evade answering all three of my questions……". No, no. I never evade your questions. It's you who are avoiding to answer my questions

Really? Then show me your answers to the 3 questions above.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman:

As you say, posting in this forum does nothing to change the hard reality Okinawa is forced go under. Even so, we must keep sending our message to anyone interested in and concerned with Okinawa's burdens. As part of my endeavor, I've already sent protesting letters directly to the U.S. Departments of State and Defense nearly one hundred times since around 2003. So I'm sure they know at least what our grievance about this excessive U.S. military presence is.

Of course I've asked them the same question I asked of you: On what legal basis can the U.S. demand Futenma's replacement? Probably, I faxed the same question to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo. Both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Roos are professional lawyers by origin so that they must be aware of what problem there is in the Futenma issue but they, like you, stick to the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan. If they do so while fully knowing the illegal nature of Futenma, then they must be censured severely and the U.S. policy regarding Futenma must be condemned to the nail.

That Futenma must be moved outside of Okinawa with no strings attached is not solely my claim You must already know the results of Nago's mayoral election and Okinawa Prefectural gubernatorial election; and also the Prefectural Assembly's unanimous resolution that Futenma must be moved out of Okinawa. Yesterday, people from what you call the "elite world" announced their appeal calling on Tokyo to rescind the environmental impact assessment report to be sent to the prefectural government, meaning the Henoko relocation plan must be scrapped. The members cross party lines. I suggest you to examine their names. My voice thus represents the majority of Okinawa's voice even though you try to belittle it.

To my question about Futenma's legal status, you retort you answered it 5 times. But all you said was you don't know the answer because you aren't a juror but instead demanded that I take it to court if I think I am right. If you don't know the answer, or if you can't answer, why then can you claim as if the U.S. had a legitimate right to demand Futenma's replacement? I asked this question in the above post, and you repeat you answered it 5 times. No, you didn't answer at all. And I know you can't. Even Clinton and Roos can't answer the question. Why can you? If so, then this whole Futenma relocation plan is nothing but a sham.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm America should build a base on the Senkaku islands. The Americans should station a company of Marines there as a "tripwire". They call Okinawa "The Rock" and they should be introduced to the real thing. My guy adds that strict enforcement of General Order #1 (no drinking) should be done. Everything the Marines need can be brought in on boats. Add a few helicopter pads and it is all set. If they complain "suck it up Marine!" You volunteered! Once this is done the Marine bases on Okinawa can be closed. Oh they do nothing for the defense from North Korea. Does anyone really expect the North to fire missiles at Okinawa?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In other words, our cause is not just for ourselves but also for the genuine independence of Japan from the U.S. domination.

voiceofokinawa, how would you accomplish that with the Constitution of Japan Article 9? It is easy to brag about it and again talk is cheap.

Are you saying you are ready to change it and ready to be drafted to go to the combat, right? I am not talking about you going to a Boy Scout Eagle Team here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcher:

If a country is subjugated by another country, the first thing you try to do is get rid of that fact. All other things come after that.

I can read between the lines of your post that you want the status quo to remain intact. In other words, you want the U.S. military presence to keep going on indefinitely despite what you said in your post dated dated Dec, 19m 2011 - 06:58Am JST. The U.S. government says the U.S. military presence is for the defense of Japan, but you say to the contrary. If you really think as you said in your post above, why don't you call on the U.S. military to come home as soon as possible, beginning with those unwelcome marines, for starters. 

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOO

lincolnman: As you say, posting in this forum does nothing to change the hard reality Okinawa is forced go under. Even so, we must keep sending our message to anyone interested in and concerned with Okinawa's burdens. As part of my endeavor, I've already sent protesting letters directly to the U.S. Departments of State and Defense nearly one hundred times since around 2003. So I'm sure they know at least what our grievance about this excessive U.S. military presence is. Of course I've asked them the same question I asked of you: On what legal basis can the U.S. demand Futenma's replacement? Probably, I faxed the same question to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo. Both Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Roos are professional lawyers by origin so that they must be aware of what problem there is in the Futenma issue but they, like you, stick to the Futenma-to-Henoko relocation plan

If true (and that's a big if), then let me commend you - but that's a start, and only a start - and unfortunately, you're arguing to the wrong audience. If you want the FRF plan scrapped, you have to first convince your own government. When your government tells the US that the plan is not executable, and requires revision, the US will do so. So, again, you have to convince your nation's leaders. What have you done to accomplish that?

That Futenma must be moved outside of Okinawa with no strings attached is not solely my claim You must already know the results of Nago's mayoral election and Okinawa Prefectural gubernatorial election; and also the Prefectural Assembly's unanimous resolution that Futenma must be moved out of Okinawa. Yesterday, people from what you call the "elite world" announced their appeal calling on Tokyo to rescind the environmental impact assessment report to be sent to the prefectural government, meaning the Henoko relocation plan must be scrapped. The members cross party lines. I suggest you to examine their names. My voice thus represents the majority of Okinawa's voice even though you try to belittle it.

The 2006 ATARA agreement has been distorted by the elite controlled media - and by other elites (you may know one) who continue to profess that facilities other than Naha Port and Futenma slated for closure will be relocated within the prefecture. Many local people have been duped to believe this fairy tale. If an accurate and complete overview of the agreement were made, I believe their view would change. And as we know in "Elite World", the people who argue the most that the US military should pack up and leave, are the ones who secretly most want it to stay, so they block all progress.

To my question about Futenma's legal status, you retort you answered it 5 times. But all you said was you don't know the answer because you aren't a juror but instead demanded that I take it to court if I think I am right. If you don't know the answer, or if you can't answer, why then can you claim as if the U.S. had a legitimate right to demand Futenma's replacement? I asked this question in the above post, and you repeat you answered it 5 times. No, you didn't answer at all. And I know you can't. Even Clinton and Roos can't answer the question. Why can you? If so, then this whole Futenma relocation plan is nothing but a sham.

I answered you honestly - each of the five times I replied. I said I did not know because I had not researched the issue and could not offer an intelligent, well-thought out position. Unlike you, I don't offer my opinion lightly. That is my answer - don't like it, that's your problem. I don't plan on answering it a sixth time.......

Yuri-san

Hmm America should build a base on the Senkaku islands. The Americans should station a company of Marines there as a "tripwire". They call Okinawa "The Rock" and they should be introduced to the real thing. My guy adds that strict enforcement of General Order #1 (no drinking) should be done. Everything the Marines need can be brought in on boats. Add a few helicopter pads and it is all set. If they complain "suck it up Marine!" You volunteered! Once this is done the Marine bases on Okinawa can be closed. Oh they do nothing for the defense from North Korea. Does anyone really expect the North to fire missiles at Okinawa?

I'm not getting your logic at all - maybe it was satire? You want to toss the Marines off Okinawa, yet want them to deploy to the Senkakus to defend and protect your country's sovereign property from the Chinese? Perhaps you aren't as up on the Security Treaty as you need to be - you are aware aren't you that when those Marines sail from Okinawa to the Senkakus and are accompanied by JMSDF ships, that if the Chinese attack the US vessels, but not the Japanese, your ships cannot come to the defense of the US ones? And you are aware that if the reverse happened, that the US ships would come immediately to the aid of the Japanese? Yet you still want US Marines to defend the Senkakus? Please describe to me how that is an equal and fair sharing of responsibilities and burdens......

And just FYI - I'm not sure what your strategic threat assessment qualifications are, but ask any professional analyst who studies the threat to Japan (US or GOJ) and they'll tell you that yes, North Korea is targeting Okinawa, but the real threat is China - they have several new sophisticated IRBMs with MARv warheads that were developed specifically to attack Okinawa......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman:

Our battle is two-pronged, one against Washington and another against Tokyo. And as you know well, Tokyo follows whatever Washington dictates them to do, especially in matters of military alliance. The most recent case is an environmental impact assessment report, which is required to be submitted to the Okinawa prefectural government to start construction work in Henoko. Washington pressed Tokyo to expedite that administrative procedure as soon as possible.

Thus, when Foreign Minister Koichiro Genba went to Washington, his souvenir to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to tell her that the Japanese government would submit the report to Okinawa Prefecture within the year. When U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panneta came to Japan, he was also assured of Tokyo's intention as regards this report. Tokyo's face is thus always oriented toward Washington and not to its own nationals' welfare and benefit.

They say Japan-U.S. relations count most above anything else; Okinawa's voice is almost nothing compared with this; Japan must not offend the U.S.; and therefore that Futenma must be relocated to Henoko as the U.S. pleases. Thus, we are battling hard two-pronged battles. It's easy for you to say, because you must be very familiar with Japanese politics, that I am arguing against "the wrong audience." No, I don't. My argument is directed not only against Washington but at the same time also against Tokyo.

Now, you repeatedly say that I am distorting what you call the 2006 ATARA agreement. I don't understand why you insist it so much. If what you call the 2006 ATARA agreement is the same as the 2006 U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation, there is nothing distorted or misinterpreted on my part concerning the "total return" of the bases south of Kadena. I asked you to counter my argument item by item, but all you say is I am distorting its content.

Concerning the most fundamental question I raised, that is, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the U.S. demand that Futenma's function be relocated Henoko, you retort: "I answered you honestly - each of the five times I replied. I said I did not know because I had not researched the issue and could not offer an intelligent, well-thought out position. " It doesn't need any resarch nor intelligence. A child can answer the question, but you can't answer it although you know the answer. Shall I answer it for you? Futenma sits on the private land illegally confiscated in violation of international law (Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which stipulates that private land cannot be confiscated.) Why can't you answer such simple question? It's simply because if you admit it, you lose your legal ground not only for Futenma but also many other U.S. bases in Okinawa. You know, many of them sit on similarly confiscated land. Therefore, you must keep saying "I don't know." Good for you.

(P.S. I am writing this post while traveling in Kobe. So I may not be able to respond to your next post.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My guy thinks the "jar heads" are perfect for that sort of mission. Though I am not sure why Marines are called that since jars holds stuff. Anyhow if the Americans think the Chinese will attack them then they need to send more ships and get Japan to change the law. It really is a matter of interpretation with the spineless in Tokyo thinking it means do nothing. Foreign policy is to put their heads on the ground and their rears in the air. As for the Minister of Defense he has his hindquarters where his headquarters should be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. government says the U.S. military presence is for the defense of Japan, but you say to the contrary

I do believe US presence in Asia is very critical and I am for US troops to stay in Japan, but I am not sure it is worth defending Okinawans.. Simple.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If a country is subjugated by another country, the first thing you try to do is get rid of that fact. All other things come after that.

voiceofokinawa, Please be specific how you achieve the goal listed above. Are you ready for being drafted? I would like to know yes/no from you. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman: Our battle is two-pronged, one against Washington and another against Tokyo. And as you know well, Tokyo follows whatever Washington dictates them to do, especially in matters of military alliance. The most recent case is an environmental impact assessment report, which is required to be submitted to the Okinawa prefectural government to start construction work in Henoko. Washington pressed Tokyo to expedite that administrative procedure as soon as possible. Tokyo's face is thus always oriented toward Washington and not to its own nationals' welfare and benefit. They say Japan-U.S. relations count most above anything else; Okinawa's voice is almost nothing compared with this; Japan must not offend the U.S.; and therefore that Futenma must be relocated to Henoko as the U.S. pleases. Thus, we are battling hard two-pronged battles. It's easy for you to say, because you must be very familiar with Japanese politics, that I am arguing against "the wrong audience." No, I don't. My argument is directed not only against Washington but at the same time also against Tokyo.

Easy out. I see this as just an excuse to focus your anger on what you hate most – the US. If the GOJ said firmly to the US, “Henoko is not an option”, then the two governments would begin new negotiations on an alternative. Just saying “Japan will follow the US” is a cop out – it gets you off the hook for advocating and trying to influence the one party who can make a difference – YOUR government. To me, it’s just another indicator that while the elites all rail against the US military presence, they secretly plot to ensure it remains…….

Now, you repeatedly say that I am distorting what you call the 2006 ATARA agreement. I don't understand why you insist it so much. If what you call the 2006 ATARA agreement is the same as the 2006 U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation, there is nothing distorted or misinterpreted on my part concerning the "total return" of the bases south of Kadena. I asked you to counter my argument item by item, but all you say is I am distorting its content.

When will you realize that your view of the agreement is 100% wrong. Go back and contact the OPP – call or e-mail MOFA, contact one of the experts at Ryuku University – they’ll all tell you that you are wrong – that other than Naha and Futenma, no other bases are going to be relocated within the Prefecture. I’m done giving you free English lessons – go do your own fact checking……. Or maybe you already have and can’t admit you were wrong?

Concerning the most fundamental question I raised, that is, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the U.S. demand that Futenma's function be relocated Henoko, you retort: "I answered you honestly - each of the five times I replied. I said I did not know because I had not researched the issue and could not offer an intelligent, well-thought out position. " It doesn't need any resarch nor intelligence. A child can answer the question, but you can't answer it although you know the answer. Shall I answer it for you? Futenma sits on the private land illegally confiscated in violation of international law (Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which stipulates that private land cannot be confiscated.) Why can't you answer such simple question? It's simply because if you admit it, you lose your legal ground not only for Futenma but also many other U.S. bases in Okinawa. You know, many of them sit on similarly confiscated land. Therefore, you must keep saying "I don't know." Good for you.

Anyone who says that a complex international issue “doesn’t need any research or intelligence” and that “a child can answer the question” obviously has very little command of the facts or already has their mind closed to any open discussion. That means either you’re very naïve or very stupid – again, I haven’t researched this so I don’t know which applies to you.

(P.S. I am writing this post while traveling in Kobe. So I may not be able to respond to your next post.)

Enjoy your trip……..

Yuri-san,

My guy thinks the "jar heads" are perfect for that sort of mission. Though I am not sure why Marines are called that since jars holds stuff. Anyhow if the Americans think the Chinese will attack them then they need to send more ships and get Japan to change the law. It really is a matter of interpretation with the spineless in Tokyo thinking it means do nothing. Foreign policy is to put their heads on the ground and their rears in the air. As for the Minister of Defense he has his hindquarters where his headquarters should be.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand a word of what you are trying to say here…….

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First to globalwatcher (posted on Dec. 22, 2011 - 11:49AM JST and Dec. 22, 2011 - 12:08PM JST ) :

My answer to you is the same as I posted on Dec. 21, 2011 - 04:26PM JST:

If a country is subjugated by another country, the first thing you try to do is get rid of that fact. All other things come after that. It's none of your business how we will handle our internal affairs after that.

For you and your ilk, China may be your enemy no. 1. But as far as we are concerned, your enmity toward China has nothing to do with us. Don't tell us you are defending Okinawa from China's invasion or from its newly developed IRB missiles. Someone in this forum wrote that China has developed new sophisticated IRBMs that were developed specifically TO ATTACK OKINAWA. Wow, that's scary, indeed. But rather than "Okinawa", the poster should have written "U.S. bases in Okinawa spearheaded by Kadena Air Base (plus Kadena Ammunition Depots) and Futenma." Without those U.S. bases, would China's missiles still target Okinawa -- civilian sectors in Naha City, Gonowan or Nago? For what reasons?

Now, to lincolnman (Dec. 22, 2011 - 04:45PM JST):

Whatever name-calling you may attempt -- "you hate the U.S. most", "anti-American", "visceral hatred for the U.S.", I will repeat what the majority of Okinawa think: Futenma must be returned to Okinawa without any strings attached. The Henoko relocation plan or any plan purporting to move Futenma within Okinawa is unacceptable to us and must be prevented by all means. Why? If we sanctioned it, Futenma's illegality would dissipate instantly, undergoing base laundering in the semblance of money laundering, and the U.S. could maintain those military bases in Okinawa with impunity infinitely. Okinawa would thus suffer the status of a U.S. military colony for good. We are fighting this battle not out of cheap, selfish political motivation but geuinely for our posterity.

Despite your suggestion that our anger be directed against Tokyo, we all know it's the U.S. that is the culprit, pulling wires behind the scenes all the time -- a U.S. represented by jingoistic people like you with a tendency of thinking in neo-conservatism, who like to work as a cog in that colossal military-industrial complex Dwight Eisenhauer warned the U.S. citizens of its danger more than a half-century ago. Lincolnma, I wish you wouldn't ever think you represent a true America. And don't ever call foreigners who criticize these elements in American society "anti-American."

You say that "if the GOJ said firmly to the US, 'Henoko is not an option', then the two governments would begin new negotiations on an alternative. Just saying 'Japan will follow the US' is a cop out." How dare you say that? Have you forgotten about what had happened to former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama?

I repeat to claim the real culprit pulling wires behind the scenes is always the U.S., not Tokyo, which acts as if it was a branch office of Washington when it comes to military matters in Okinawa.

Now, as for the 2006 Roadmap:

You say my view of the agreement is 100% wrong, but you don't specify why and how wrong I am. All you say is "Go back and contact the OPP – call or e-mail MOFA, contact one of the experts at Ryuku University – they’ll all tell you that you are wrong." You said you were directly involved in negotiations about this realignment issue. If so, you are the parties directly concerned with the issue. Why should I go to a third party for an explanation.

If the return of the facilities you talk about is total, unconditional return, why must their relocation and consolidation plan with existing facilities be negotiated with the Japanese side? Where will Camp Kuwae (total return), Camp Zukeran (partial return) and Makiminato Service Area (total return) be relocated to and consolidated with?

You say the question I raised about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Futenma is "a complex international issue" that needs research. No, no. The answer is very simple. Futenma illegally sits on confiscated land in violation of international law. You know the answer already but you cannot answer. I suggest you go to your legal officer if you cannot and consult with him to find a way out of this dilemma and calling black white. That's the research you need to do. When you are done with that, come back and tell us your research results.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Welcome back VOO – sorry your visit to Kobe didn’t go so well – it seems you have returned even more irritated than before you left…..

First to globalwatcher (posted on Dec. 22, 2011 - 11:49AM JST and Dec. 22, 2011 - 12:08PM JST ) : For you and your ilk, China may be your enemy no. 1. But as far as we are concerned, your enmity toward China has nothing to do with us. Don't tell us you are defending Okinawa from China's invasion or from its newly developed IRB missiles. Someone in this forum wrote that China has developed new sophisticated IRBMs that were developed specifically TO ATTACK OKINAWA. Wow, that's scary, indeed. But rather than "Okinawa", the poster should have written "U.S. bases in Okinawa spearheaded by Kadena Air Base (plus Kadena Ammunition Depots) and Futenma." Without those U.S. bases, would China's missiles still target Okinawa -- civilian sectors in Naha City, Gonowan or Nago? For what reasons?

If the dispute in the Senkakus escalated to a military conflict, the Chinese would target the closest JAPANESE military facilities - which are Naha (JASDF facility) and several JGSDF air defense facilities on the island. By the way, the US has no territorial disputes with China – your country does. And you are obviously unaware that the Chinese have much more hatred for Japan (to include Okinawa) than they do for the US. Don’t believe me? Please go to Nanking, speak a few words of Japanese, then come back to this forum and let us know how things went……..

Now, to lincolnman (Dec. 22, 2011 - 04:45PM JST): Whatever name-calling you may attempt -- "you hate the U.S. most", "anti-American", "visceral hatred for the U.S.", I will repeat what the majority of Okinawa think:

Here we go again, back to “Elite World” where the elites tell us what the rest of the Okinawa people think…..

Futenma must be returned to Okinawa without any strings attached. The Henoko relocation plan or any plan purporting to move Futenma within Okinawa is unacceptable to us and must be prevented by all means. Why? If we sanctioned it, Futenma's illegality would dissipate instantly, undergoing base laundering in the semblance of money laundering, and the U.S. could maintain those military bases in Okinawa with impunity infinitely. Okinawa would thus suffer the status of a U.S. military colony for good. We are fighting this battle not out of cheap, selfish political motivation but geuinely for our posterity.

Inaccurate and inflammatory. With the relocation of Futenma, the US military foorptint would be reduced by 40%. Only in Elite World do you say you are for reducing the US military presence, but fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening….

Despite your suggestion that our anger be directed against Tokyo, we all know it's the U.S. that is the culprit, pulling wires behind the scenes all the time -- a U.S. represented by jingoistic people like you with a tendency of thinking in neo-conservatism, who like to work as a cog in that colossal military-industrial complex Dwight Eisenhauer warned the U.S. citizens of its danger more than a half-century ago. Lincolnma, I wish you wouldn't ever think you represent a true America. And don't ever call foreigners who criticize these elements in American society "anti-American."

I give you an “A” for that rant – it has more conspiracy theory rhetoric than I’ve seen in quite some time. However, it is another classic example of logic in Elite World – say your own government is irrelevant to the process so you can focus your anger on a secondary party. By doing that you ensure the status quo is maintained - keeping the US military at its present level on the island – you’re overall primary goal.

You say that "if the GOJ said firmly to the US, 'Henoko is not an option', then the two governments would begin new negotiations on an alternative. Just saying 'Japan will follow the US' is a cop out." How dare you say that? Have you forgotten about what had happened to former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama?

No, I haven't - you must have, because Hatoyama couldn’t convince your own government ruling coalition.

Now, as for the 2006 Roadmap: You say my view of the agreement is 100% wrong, but you don't specify why and how wrong I am. All you say is "Go back and contact the OPP – call or e-mail MOFA, contact one of the experts at Ryuku University – they’ll all tell you that you are wrong." You said you were directly involved in negotiations about this realignment issue. If so, you are the parties directly concerned with the issue. Why should I go to a third party for an explanation.

Because I have explained the correct English interpretation regarding the Agreement multiple times to you on this post and others, yet you continue to proffer this fairly tale. So I have implored you to contact YOUR own experts – you may remember I even researched and gave you their e-mail address and drafted a message you would only have to cut and paste and send to them – and what came of that? NOTHING. So much for doing your research.

f the return of the facilities you talk about is total, unconditional return, why must their relocation and consolidation plan with existing facilities be negotiated with the Japanese side? Where will Camp Kuwae (total return), Camp Zukeran (partial return) and Makiminato Service Area (total return) be relocated to and consolidated with?

In the interests of saving space, just see any of the other posts where I have explained this to you in exhaustive detail.

You say the question I raised about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Futenma is "a complex international issue" that needs research. No, no. The answer is very simple. Futenma illegally sits on confiscated land in violation of international law. You know the answer already but you cannot answer.

I see in Elite World, the elites even believe they speak for non-Okinawa people also…….

I suggest you go to your legal officer if you cannot and consult with him to find a way out of this dilemma and calling black white. That's the research you need to do. When you are done with that, come back and tell us your research results

As alluded to above, you are hardly the one to be lecturing anyone on doing their research.......

You said this issue doesn’t require any intelligence and “that a child could answer the question” – for once, I agree with you – according to your own words, the views you espouse lack intelligence and are certainly “childish”…….

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