The math doesn’t check out. Its claim of 3,300 is absolutely impossible. Even being generous with estimates when comparing to deaths around the world, it can’t be less then 10,000.
China mourns tens of thousands who died in country's coronavirus epidemic
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Why would you test everyone? It’s a limited resource that’s expensive. You only need to use the test for at risk persons who are suspected to have corona virus.
Since corona virus is a chest cold for the majority of the it would be a waste to use a test on them. it’s a very weak and over glorified virus compared to influenza and other sicknesses. Once this first pass phenomenon ends, it will never receive the same attention it’s been given.
-14 ( +6 / -20 )
Nobuko Kan was never in the LDP and the LDP has been out of power for over a year prior to 3/11
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
he should be tried in a US military court.
He has to be in the military to be tried in a military court.
17 ( +17 / -0 )
In fact why they need guns at all on base is a mystery. Aren't those bases safe? Is any lunatic with a gun allowed in?
They require them protect property. They have weapons to ensure things like equipment, weapons, and documents critical to American and Japanese national security cannot be stolen.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Oh, and Okinawa's location makes Okinawa a target. Whether is be an American base, a Japanese base, or a Ryukyuan base there will always be an adversary that wants to take it.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
The US bases are not to protect Okinawa but project American power!
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Categorically, since 1945 and especially after 1989, there hasn't been a more prosperous and stable time in human history. Since the US hegemony, we've seen the world's economy grow exponentially, quality of life improve significantly, and unprecedented scientific advancement. Much of where we see the world today has been a result of US influence and projection.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Yuri, 5,000 are leaving Okinawa as stated in the article.
The current plan will relocate approximately 5,000 Marines, of whom about 1,700 will be permanently based on Guam and the remainder rotated every half year, [in Guam not Okinawa] according to Tina Rose Muna Barnes, speaker of the island's legislature.
Riperez’s post tend to lack fact and popular belief so it’s not really worth a response, Base.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Why stop there? Relocate all the U.S. military forces out of Japan. Time has come and gone for that country to defend itself.
And let China control our interests in the West Pacific.... top 10 awful ideas.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
5,000 is right on par with what was agreed upon. You may be mixing it up with 9,000 when is the inclusion of dependent and civil employees.
Well, the move is contingent upon Camp Schwab extension to replace Futenma and the completion of Camp Blaz in Guam. Camp Blaz hasn’t been a big issues but a certain other place seems to want to hold up the redeployment of the Marines here.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Move them to main land USA
Why? They do the world no good on the continental US. It’s much more efficient and effective to respond to contingencies where they happen
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Only 1700 marines are leaving while the others will be at least part time on Okinawa. Another American deception, they can not stop lying!
The article clearly states 5,000 will be leaving Okinawa. 1,700 will be permanently stationed in Guam while the remain 3,300 will be rotational forces.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Serrano, you understand the "Great" depression started with a trade war? It was started by the USA.
What? No. Simply put, that's not fact, historically accurate, or even an academic opinion.
Unregulated banks, a middle class purchasing things they couldn't afford, 1% owning over a 3rd of the nation's wealth, and a war ravaged struggling European economy led to the great depression,
1 ( +1 / -0 )
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
This all begs the question of whether this would be happening with the same frequency if there were no US forces stationed here. It's also a matter of the severity of the crimes committed, which often result in serious physical injury and the loss of life.
Yes, crime statistics show that US Servicemen make up for a small fraction of the crime rate and violent crime rate in the prefecture. So really, the nationality, the presence, and the person’s profession doesn’t matter. Some individuals in this world, regardless of their nationality or jobs are alive to do atrocious things.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
You aren't responding to my post squarely.
Uh, are you serious. Facts have been graciously presented to counter your for several years and you continue to ignore them. We have been beyond square... You've never been able to counter any post or provide legitimately proven fact to negate our post. Your arguments have all been based off of emotional response and your individual perception in lieu of truth and reality.
Both of your mistake is that you think or want to think U.S. troops are here as invited guests. You may be right because their presence is defined in a treaty as if they were guests. Even so, they are like knaves taking a yard for an inch.
The treaty, reverently called the TREATY OF MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SECURITY BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is thus a facade to camouflage the reality of Okinawa being placed under the same regime as in the Occupation era.
This is your individual opinion and there are zero facts or even a popular consensus to support it.
How do you feel if 83% of the area of your municipality is taken by the U.S. military pretending to be invited guests?
They're not pretending to be invited guests they very literally are invited guest. As for taking 83% of my municipality, I live in Okinawa Shi so Camp Foster and Kadena AFB hold a pretty good portion of the municipality and things aren't majorly impacted here by it. We probably gain more from it.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I have lived here for 48 years on the local economy and if the U.S. bases left tomorrow, I would still stay here.
Looks like Yubaru, yourself, and I have some stuff in common. Still completely disagree with you about the IJA and how you cant see that they would indiscriminately anyone who didn't follow their commands/expectations to a T regardless of nationality.
If the marines who are to be relocated to Guam can deal with contingency in waters near Okinawa, what role will Ospreys and other VTOL aircraft based there play?
Do you really want to play that game? Click my name, Extanker, Yubaru, or CyburneticTiger and the comment history will answer that question.
52.48% of the registered voters on Okinawa voted in the referendum and that is a majority of the registered voters on Okinawa and 72.15% of the people who voted in the referendum voted against the Henoko Landfill and that is a majority and those are facts!!
No, math shows that only one third of the eligible voters voted "no," a non-vote is equal to acceptance of the status quo. In this case status quo is relocating Futenma to Camp Schwab. A mandate in this case is a very tough sell to an unbiased observer.
If one doesn't like this state of affairs to be called occupation, he or she should ask the U.S.
Or they just ignore what you say because you're the only one saying it. If you invited a friend or family member to stay over your house for an extended period of time you would not say your house is under occupation. The metaphor fits the current state of affairs nicely.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Excellent! Good for both Taiwan and Japan!
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Ha! I never said the IJA was fair and even handed but in a sense their brutality was. They were brutal and cruel; devoted to their distorted view of "duty" and "honor." Any person, enemy or countrymen who wasn't willing to make the same sacrifice as them would be treated with the same brutality and cruelty. Doesn't matter if they're a Shimabukro from Koza or a Sato from Yamaguchi.
I think it was easy for the Japanese Govt. to sacrifice Okinawa
Of course you do, without that false boogey man the minority hantai base side lose a large portion of their propaganda; and ultimately support/pity.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Forced sacrifice = not a sacrifice on Japan's part.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The IJA murdered countless civilians on Okinawa and forced countless more to commit suicide. That anyone can say that the IJA treated civilians in Okinawa the same as civilians in Mainland Japan is an attempt to whitewash the crimes committed by the IJA on Okinawa just like the Japanese Govt. attempts to do with their revised school textbooks.
Well, the US never invaded mainland Japan so we'll never know what the IJA would have done but I stand by the idea that they likely would have done the same thing to the civilian populations of mainland as the did in Okinawa.
It is the opinion of some experts in the field that Mainland Japan sacrificed Okinawa in WWII. They did sacrifice Okinawa by giving it to the U.S. in order to gain their own sovereignty. Imagine how the people of Okinawa must have felt when they found out they were being given to the U.S. Military.
Japan wasn't calling the shots in the negotiations, the US was. The best example I can think of is the US was a bank repossessing your car but letting you keep your house. A complete forced sacrifice on America's part.
It is not only my opinion but the opinion of a large number of people on Okinawa that the Central Govt. dislikes them.
Well, we all know what opinions are like... especially incorrect, misinformed, and unproven ones.
But isn't it a fact that the two governments struck a deal to the effect that primary responsibility to defend Japan's territory rests with the SDF; agreed that 8,000 to 9,000 Okinawa-deployed marines would transfer to Guam and that Japan would shoulder a significant portion of the transfer cost such as for building infrastructure in Guam, etc.?
Irrelevant to the point. The relocation of Marines to reduce the burden on Okinawa doesn't hinder or change the US commitment to defend Japan.
The Japanese government has repeatedly confirmed with the U.S. if they would help defend Japan in the event of contingency. Naturally, the U.S. side has reassured Tokyo .that they would based on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
Thank you for proving my point
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The problem is arrogant Mainland Politicians and Central Govt. bureaucrats who have always disliked the people of Okinawa.
In your opinion... unless you can produce direct quotes where politicians and bureaucrats have said, "I hate Okinawans."
They dislike the people of Okinawa so much that they have always sacrificed them for the good of the Mainland every chance they have had from the Battle of Okinawa to actually giving the people of Okinawa to the U.S. Military.
The idea that Japan sacrificed Okinawa is so flawed, the Battle of Okinawa was a battle location picked by the US. Just prior to the battle of Iwo Jima the US identified Okinawa as the location they wanted to take to initiate the invasion of mainland Japan because they knew, unlike Okinawa, Iwo Jima wasn't capable of supporting a large scale invasion. Japan wasn't screaming, "Hey America, come take Okinawa first! These people and this island are worthless to us." If they saw no value in Okinawa there would be no attempt to defend the island and all efforts and manpower would be focused on defending the main islands. My honest opinion, in a 1945 Japanese social structure, the IJA would have treated mainland civilians exactly the same as they treated Okinawan civilians.
Should contingencies ever occur over outlying islands, it's the SDF that will rush to the scene first for they have primary responsibility to deal with such events while the USFJ, above all, the Marines' combat units, are enjoying life back in safer hinterland like Guam, Hawaii and elsewhere, that are thousand kilometers away from Okinawa.
You keep saying this line but you have nothing to prove this and all treaties, agreements, and obligations between the US and Japan ensure that US forces, including the Marines, will be fighting and responding alongside the SDF. You're only spreading lies and conjecture when you say this. Primary responsibility of the JSDF does not absolve the US of any responsibility, the Marines aviation and ground combat elements will be right next to SDF forces taking back which ever Japanese islands are occupied.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Should read “Policy Maker”
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If you can't answer these questions, it will mean the U.S. intends to keep Okinawa as its military bastion forever for whatever reason. In other words, the Henoko relocation plan is motivated by nothing but the U.S.’s sheer greed and egotism a.k.a. “America-first”-ism.
I didn’t know darknuts was a Senior Policy makes for the US or a high ranking Marine Strategist. Darknuts, why have you been holding out on sharing these revelations with us?!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Japan's prefecture should've federalized, just as US states did. IIRC, a state governor can refuse to build or have built a military base in his state...wouldn't do it due to economic advantage.
This is not true, the US Federal has imminent domain and will build a military base where ever and whenever they chose. And, much like Okinawa, it would happen regardless of a governors support or a small vocal anti-base element. Virginia and California are excellent examples of that.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Lol...no it doesnt get me worked up or loose any confidence because no matter how the pro LDP fanboys try to spin the result , numbers are clear...almost 4 times as many people opposed the move in the referendum as supported it. Thats pretty clear cut. You try to to make light of 430, 000 voters supporting it , yet conveniently gloss over the fact the yes vote only managed a pathetic 114,000 which translates to only 10% of total eligible voter support. And before anymore pro LDO spin comes into it, the 48% who didnt show up ...even if we were to be overgenerous and say their opinion is split 50/50...it would not change the overwhelming defeat for the new base supporters
Ahhh, bro, it makes sense now. You fail to see the point of this whole things. The argument has never been that Okinawans support the relocation. The clear cut argument is that most people don't care either way and that its twisting fact to say that the majority of all Okinawans oppose the relocation. There's no spin when you say more Okinawans voted neither or didn't vote at all than ones who voted in opposition. Its straight up facts
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
What part of 72% against the move and 19% in favor is so difficult for LDP bots to understand that you have the need to try and spin such clearcut result?
It’s interesting how worked up you get about those numbers. You did the same to CyberneticTigers breakdown of the election results on the other article.
Does it cause you to lose confidence in the idea of a clear majority of opposition when you see only a 3rd of Okinawans casted ballots in opposition? It makes sense to be shaken when you realize 72% of the participating 52% is not a large majority when you take into account opposition only got 430,000 votes from the 1,150,000 eligible voters. That’s pretty clear cut.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Ohh Bam_boo, if you think that’s true then you really can’t see the forest for the bamboo.
Theres a glaring problem to the argument that the majority of Okinawa is in opposition. You can’t deny it when they were only able to pull out half of the eligible voter and only have around 1/3 of eligible voters vote in opposition.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
It’s interesting how on Friday and Saturday, major news outlets like Asahi, Mainichi, Yomuri, etc are reporting that it will be a massive hurdle to get more than 50% participation in the referendum. In spite of that Kyodo releases a “poll” claiming nearly 70% would participate... sounds fishy. Maybe a last ditch effort to renew interest in something that is a non-issue to most Okinawa residents.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It is like Camp Lester which the Americans will never return. It should of been returned with the completion of the new military hospital
This is not exactly accurate per the Defense Policy Review Initiative and Special Action Committee on Okinawa, the return of Camp Lester and Camp Kinser has been contingent on the relocation of MCAS Futenma. The building of Naval Hospital Camp Foster was to facilitate the ability to close Camp Lester. The relocation of the Naha Port military functions and the expansion of Camp Schwab is being done to support the logistical aspects that facilitates the closure of Camp Kinser. However, because both camps provide a significant amount of housing to military and dependents, these places cannot be returned until MCAS Futenma is relocated to Camp Schwab which will allow Marines are able to move several marines and dependents off island to Guam.
It's very disingenuous to say that Camp Lester (and Kinser) will never be returned when the parameters of the agreement have not been met.
1 ( +4 / -3 )