JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

lincolnman's past comments

• 

  2

  lincolnmanFeb. 11, 2012 - 07:12PM JST

  If you say there was no political motivation behind Operation Tomodachi, I will take your word because you were directly involved in it. But I remember a high ranking U.S. military officer telling immediately after the relief operations that this would smoothen the way for the Futenma issue to be solved as the U.S. favors -- that is, Futenma would be relocated to Henoko as bilaterally agreed upon.

  I am not aware of any US military or civilian official making any comment linking Operation Tomodachi to the FRF issue. I do believe there were several GOJ politicians, in both the DPJ and LDP, that made this reference.

  During the Cold War era, it required no effort to find reasons for this hefty military presence. With the Cold War over, however, the U.S. needed cogent justification for maintaining the same scale of military presence in Japan. It was under these circumstances that disaster relief operation was added as the USFJ's important military function.

  Support to Humanitarian and Disaster Relief activities has been a mission of the US military in Japan (and worldwide) during the entire post WW II period - it was not added at the conclusion of the Cold War.

  So there's a political motivation behind such endeavors as Operation Tomodachi.

  I disagree - there was no political motivation in the lead up to launching Operation Tomodachi - though it is possible that the effort may result in political consequences after the fact.

  Posted in: Nago mayor, in U.S., steps up criticism of new Okinawa agreement

• 

  2

  lincolnmanFeb. 11, 2012 - 04:23PM JST

  I am not questioning the sincerity of general American people (that include individual service members, of course). It's their government's double standard that I'm always taking issue with.

  What double standard? After the earthquake and tsunami, the US made extraordinary efforts to come to the assistance of a bilateral partner, and a friend. That they then didn't offer to do more by deferring prior agreed to financial support as part of the Security Alliance is somehow a double standard? Hardly. Would it have been an additional act of kindness and support? Yes. A double standard? Nonsense.

  Lincolnman says "Negotiations on GOJ support to US facilities is part of a formal process that is conducted every three years." That may be true. But my wishful thinking is that, in view of the hardship Japan must undergo, the U.S. side should have refrained from accepting the financial support ("sympathy budget") for U.S. bases even if it was already agreed upon between the two governments.

  I would agree with you - it would have been extremely magnanimous for the US to defer prior agreed upon financial support - I would have supported that initiative, if offered. But what bothers me is the constant "hedging" regarding Operation Tomodachi you see from the elites on Okinawa - such as the clear biased anti-US propaganda that sfjp330 highlights above published in the Shimpo and Times - a perfect example of not having the courage or decency to honestly acknowledge the good that Operation Tomodachi did for countless of their fellow Japanese citizens, merely because it undercuts their own political agenda.

  Posted in: Nago mayor, in U.S., steps up criticism of new Okinawa agreement

• 

  2

  lincolnmanFeb. 11, 2012 - 09:21AM JST

  VOO,

  I think your assertion that mere politics was the reason that the US government put so much effort and resources into assisting in the tsunami relief effort is short-sided, cynical, and an insult to both those in the GOJ and US. Note that while the US military formed the bulk of the support, other US civilian agencies provided significant support also - and are still doing so even today. The US Dept of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission remain on-site assisting in efforts to stabilize the Fukushima plant.

  More to the point, your assertion is invalid and inaccurate. Negotiations on GOJ support to US facilities is part of a formal process that is conducted every three years. Those negotiations, and the amount of support agreed to by both sides, was jointly agreed to long before the events of 11 March.

  But even if your assertion were true (which it isn't), if you were buried under ruble where your house once stood, or were stranded in a shelter with your children with no water or food, would you care why someone was putting their own life in danger helping save you and your famiy? What would you think of someone after the fact diminishing the value of their sacrifice and criticizing their efforts?

  Posted in: Nago mayor, in U.S., steps up criticism of new Okinawa agreement

• 

  0

  lincolnmanFeb. 10, 2012 - 08:11PM JST

  Yubaru - agreed, but it's not for lack of trying. I think you're aware that the politicians, academics and media on Okinawa form an elite that control 90% of all information on the island - and only allow far left wing, anti-US views are accepted.

  Obviously, anything that sends the message that the Security Treaty has benefits as compared to only burdens threatens them; for the politicians it takes away an issue they can skew and leverage for votes, for the academics it reduces their their stature and prestige, and for the media it denies them of stories to exaggerate and sensationalize.

  And as the previous Consulate General pointed out, you can't extort money from someone unless the argument is framed as "we are victims carrying all the burden".....

  Posted in: Okinawa governor, Nago mayor not happy with U.S. forces plan

• 

  0

  lincolnmanFeb. 10, 2012 - 06:18PM JST

  The U.S. deployed presence is a burden on the U.S. as well. There is a monetary cost to maintaining U.S. forces overseas, and more important the U.S. has pledged the lives to defend Japan. An alliance is about achieving objectives, not reducing burdens. Removing the Marine air base on Okinawa does not eliminate the alliance mission.
  If people in Okinawa is disatisfield with present situation, Japan would have to amend its constitution, alter its interpretation of collective self-defense, significantly increase its defense budget, develop military capabilities it does not now have, and gain domestic and foreign support for a dramatic shift in Japanese military policy. Japan has shown no inclination to push forward on any of these issues and has been strongly resistant to any such change. Resolving the situation requires bold, decisive leadership, which unfortunately is not characteristic of Japan's political system. However, U.S. should increase its public diplomacy efforts to convince the Japanese and Okinawan legislators, media, and public that the U.S. military presence is critical to the security of Japan, as well as to regional stability. U.S. should explain that U.S. military capabilities depend on coordinated and integrated strategies. The U.S. Marines on Okinawa are an indispensable and irreplaceable component of any U.S. response to an Asian crisis.

  sfjp330 - Great post and right on the money. I would only add the following:

  • While Japan could take the option of amending its Constitution, irrespective of how difficult this would be as a domestic political issue, I think we all know what type of response it would elicit from all the other countries in Asia, and it wouldn't be good.......

  • I happen to think the US had done a fairly good job of strategically communicating the importance of the US -Japan Security Treaty; not only for Japan's benefit, but how important it is to regional stability and more broadly, economic stability worldwide. Unfortunately, no Japanese politician, other than perhaps Koizumi, has had the political strength of will to honestly and factually state how critical the US -Japan military relationship is, and the long string of benefits Japan, and its people, enjoy because of it. It just doesn't fit with the "victimhood" and "burden" lens that the public sees and evaluates the Security Treaty, and the one the government caters to - though recent "ham-fisted" actions by China in the SCS and Operation Tomodachi have helped "open some eyes"......

  Posted in: Okinawa governor, Nago mayor not happy with U.S. forces plan

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 22, 2011 - 04:45PM JST

  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…….

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

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 21, 2011 - 05:52PM JST

  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......

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

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 20, 2011 - 08:26PM JST

  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.....

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

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 20, 2011 - 05:32PM JST

  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…….

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

• 

  -2

  lincolnmanDec. 19, 2011 - 09:10PM JST

  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?

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

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 15, 2011 - 05:34PM JST

  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.

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

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 13, 2011 - 09:32PM JST

  Mr Ishihara and the other ossified members of Japan's right wing fringe make no better argument for the point of view that while the "overt" rationale for the US-Japan Security Treaty is for the defense of Japan, the "unspoken" rationale is to "keep a lid" on Japan and keep the country from again marching down the path towards militarism.

  And for the virulently nationalistic pro-China posters here, you may want to know that your government tacitly supports the US-Japan Security Treaty for this very reason (open press reporting notwithstanding). For while many Chinese openly boast of their nation's growing economic and military power, many others, to include the Communist rulers, hold a deep-seated fear of Japan, because history has taught them what Japan is capable of when nationalist fever takes hold in that country.

  You could get perhaps only one issue that North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and Australia would all agree on (behind closed doors), and that is the US - Japan Security Treaty is in all their long term interests as it keeps Japan from re-arming and again becoming a major military threat in Asia.

  Posted in: LDP's Ishihara wants base on China-claimed islands

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 13, 2011 - 06:21PM JST

  Therefore, if you are asked about your position on an issue, it is courteous of you to state your opinion.

  Speaking of courtesy VOA, don't you owe us an apology before you sign off?

  • To myself and Ryukustriker for saying you have not labeled anyone "non-Okinawan" for disagreeing with your views, when as outlined above, you clearly have....

  • To the many victims of dementia and their families you so insensitively and thoughtlessly offended by using this term in an attempt to insult me....

  • To me for...well, just read any of your posts.......

  What do you say VOA, wouldn't that be the "adult, responsible, courteous" thing to do?

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 12, 2011 - 09:03PM JST

  VOA,

  Interesting post, I could reply to it point by point, but why do so, you finally answered the question I have been asking you on not only this post, but others as well - to that we will get to in a moment, a few other things first:

  • Why do you label those who disagree with you "non-Okinawan", even though they were born and live there, and just happen to not share your opinion?

  I have never labeled anyone who disagrees with me "non-Okinawan." You must be mixed me up with someone else. Starting dementia?

  Voice of Okinawa. Nov. 28, 2011 - 03:14PM JST To ryukyustriker: You claim you are an uchinanchu and opine as if you represented the majority of Okinawans, arguing for Futenma's function to be relocated to Henoko in northern Okinawa. That's a grave distortion of facts, I declare to you.

  And no, I am thankfully not demented. But I do feel truly sorry for those, both on Okinawa and in other places, that are forced to deal with the consequences of dementia and senility, it is a tragic illness for families to live with - your use of the term so casually as an insult to me reflects a lack of compassion on your part for these victims and people in general. You owe both them and me an apology.

  • Why do you continue to try to profess to know my identity and engage in character assassination merely because I disagree with your views?

  When a person calls you without identifying himself, do you take his call? It's so difficult to talk to an invisible person in an anonymity-based forum like this that you try to work every one of the five senses to guess who you are talking to or arguing with. If you accuse me that I am engaged in character assassination, my guess may have hit the mark. Otherwise, you may laugh it off. Furthermore, if you feel my action is character assassination, it may be because you sometimes talk irresponsibly which you don't want to be known. I see many posters in this forum are irresponsibly saying whatever they want to say, taking full advantage of anonymity.

  Yes, I agree, many posters, (I can think of one primarily) do say irresponsible things. But you have engaged in a personal attack. You say my views are ridiculous, I am "immoral", that I am an agent for the US Military Public Affairs Office, a "gangster", and now I have "dementia". Do you think that is an adult and responsible way to engage in discussion or the actions of a responsible person? I'll await your answer, but if you reply, please don't call me another name....

  • Why are you "all talk and no action".....

  Isn't this forum for discussion? What's wrong with "all talk"? Action can be violent. Are you instigating that too? I repeat: This forum is for discussion. Therefore, if you are asked about your position on an issue, it is courteous of you to state your opinion. Simply saying "Take it to court if I think I am right" doesn't make an answer.

  Thank you. Thank you VOA for finally admitting what I have long said - that all you want to do is "talk". By the way, I see nothing wrong with "just talk." Talking is good. But action is what makes change, and with change comes progress.

  I have long alleged that you really don't want any change, and your admission above proves that. You prefer the status quo, and therefore you care nothing about reducing the burden of the US military presence, and improving the daily lives of the Okinawa people. It means you merely want to engage in useless philosophical debate in forums like this - and nothing more.

  There is a saying in English; "The curtain has been pulled back" - it references the movie the Wizard of Oz. We now see what is behind the VOA curtain - someone who is "all talk, no action."

  But again, thank you for honestly and completely answering this last question, and finally admitting that taking real action and making real progress towards helping the local prefectural people is not on your agenda - just "talk".

  And with that, I am finished with this thread.

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 12, 2011 - 05:32PM JST

  Bamboo

  lincolnman, we heard your funny elitist argument many times before, but we haven't seen any evidence from your side to back up your ridiculous claims that only a minority of Okinawans oppose the current Futenma Henoko relocation. There is absolutely no doubt about what the vast majority of Okinawans of all walks of life strive for...

  Thank you for providing the evidence that you seek - only an elite could claim that they speak for the "majority of Okinawans".

  Believe me, lincolnman, we (and I believe this is true for all who argue for the Okinawan side here) are all doing our best to get Futenma closed asap without Henoko's nature being destroyed in term and with every step that Japan is moving towards becoming a real democracy we are getting closer to a 'workable solution' that is acceptable for the majority of Okinawans.

  And of course you represent the "Okinawa side". A perfect example of "Elite speak" - again, thank you.

  And nobody in Okinawa will be shivering with fear of a Chinese attack on Okinawa even if the US military presence would be reduced to Okuma Rest Center.

  You may want to re-think that one again - last time I checked, the Senkakus were part of Ishigaki-jima, Prefecture of Okinawa....

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 11, 2011 - 01:34PM JST

  This is a forum for discussing ony the Futenma issue. So I dare not go into your other questions because they are irrelevant to Futenma.

  And you say I dodge and evade?

  You should give your reasoning first. This forum is for such discussion.

  I agree with the person that wrote this statement - do you? If you do, then you still owe us answers to all seven questions - you're reply on China was interesting, but didn't address the article; "China's Hu Urges Navy to Prepare for Combat"......

  We're waiting..........

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 10, 2011 - 04:27PM JST

  We are waiting your reply to the questions above........

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 09, 2011 - 11:37PM JST

  Of course, you didn't explicitly say the U.S. Marines have the right to use Futenma.

  That’s correct, I didn’t.

  But you persist to say that Futenma must be relocated to Henoko, fully knowing that the majority of Okinawans are opposed to it and calling for it to be moved out of Okinawa. That indicates you think the U.S. has an inherent right to use Futenma and can demand its replacement.

  No, that indicates what YOU think.

  You say you are not a jurist, but I understand you are officially deeply involved with this whole Futenma issue. You once said you were part of the U.S. negotiating team for ATARA. So what you say is not "absolutely irrelevant" as you pretend not. Of course you can deny all this as you like. This forum is carried out anonymously any way.

  Unless I am the US President, the GOJ Prime Minister, or a member of the Japanese Supreme Court, what I have to say is absolutely irrelevant. I can assure you I am none of them.

  I am simply asking your non-jurist personal opinion about whether Futenma sits on the illegally confiscated private land or not. You have the historical fact and the international law in front of you, which I won't repeat here. Be sure that I am not asking you this question because you have "authority to ... order the US government and GOJ to return it."

  VOA – read this sentence slowly and sound out the words - I don't know. Do you understand now?

  I have now answered your question twice. As common courtesy and as you say above, as this is a forum for discussion, you owe me a reply to the seven above I have asked of you.

  Or will we end this post like the other – with you dodging the issue and refusing to honor your word?

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 09, 2011 - 08:14PM JST

  I just want to know why you think the U.S. Marines have an inherent right to use Futenma exclusively.

  How many times do we have to go around this circle VOA? I didn't say the US Marines have the right to use Futenma exclusively - I don't know - I'm not a representative of the US or GOJ or a member of a judicial body authorized to make that judgment.

  I've been saying the land was illegally confiscated in violation of international law and so they don't have such a right -- and of course they don't have a right to demand its replalcement when asked to return it. I just want to know why you think I am wrong -- why my appeal fails.

  Here we go again. I don’t know if you’re wrong – again, I’m not a jurist or governmental official. And what I say is absolutely irrelevant – I have no authority to declare Futenma illegally sized and order the US government and GOJ to return it. The only body that can do that is a court in Japan, the US, or the World Court. Which begs the question I’ve asked for I don’t know how many posts – what are YOU doing to effect any action on YOUR issue?

  Don't simply retort that I should take the matter to. courts of higher up if I think I am right. You should give your reasoning first. This forum is for such discussion

  Why is my opinion a pre-condition for YOU to take YOUR issue up with YOUR own government representatives and courts? That’s nonsense.

  What I know is that the US and GOJ have an agreed upon solution to close Futenma and reduce the US military presence on the island. It makes a real, substantial decrease in the US military footprint. You oppose that, therefore you argue for the status quo - no reduction.

  Now that I've answered your question, please answer a few of mine:

  • Why do you consistently downplay the potential threat from China?

  • Why do you continue to propagate deliberately false information on the 2006 Agreement?

  • Why haven't you taken your views to your elected representative, the Japanese Supreme Court or a higher forum, whom are the only bodies that can influence what you want to change?

  • Why do you label those who disagree with you "non-Okinawan", even though they were born and live there, and just happen to not share your opinion?

  • Why do you continue to try to profess to know my identity and engage in character assassination merely because I disagree with your views?

  • Why haven't you offered an alternative workable solution that would reduce the US military presence if you disagree with the FRF option?

  • Why are you "all talk and no action".....

  Article Unavailable

• 

  0

  lincolnmanDec. 09, 2011 - 05:29PM JST

  This is a forum for a free discussion of an issue -- Futenma's relocation in particular. Based on the historical fact that the U.S. occupation forces confiscated private land in blatant violation of international law, I've been arguing that the U.S. Marine Corps has no legitimate rights to Futenma for its free use. Of course, that's my own judgement. Japanese courts may judge it differently or, as they often do so, avoid adjudicating, saying matters involved with bilateral agreements such as the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty (ANPO) goes beyond the jurisdiction of the nation's judicial system. Absurd though it may sound, the ANPO thus transcends the sovereign nation's constitution -- that's a sad situation indeed ithat chracterizes currrent Japan-U.S. relatiionship. Probably well-versed in this system, lincolnman, you are urging me to take action if I think I am right.

  Yes, I am - it's what I've been saying all along - if you think your government is not responding to your arguments (which I note you have yet to elevate), then take it to another forum, the Word Court or similar body. As I have stated, there are numerous Human Rights groups that will voluntarily represent those who they think have a deserving cause. If you have the strength of your convictions, then you would do so - if not, then you are not really serious about the issue.

  In your post dated Dec.01,2011-06:31PM JST, you said: "With the relocation of Futenma, Camps Kinser, Lester and portions of Camp Foster (along with Futenma) are returned to the local government and 8,000 marines and another 10,000 of their family members are moved to Guam." So I looked again at that agreement and quoted (or rather copied and pasted) the relevant portion of it in my post above and cast a doubt about the promises of their return, citing the case of the Naha military port as an example. The Naha military port had been promised for total return years before 2006 provided that its replacement would be built in Urasoe. But it hasn't been returned because the Japanese side has been unable to meet the U.S. demand. The other 5 facilities, Futenma included, of course, are also promised for TOTAL RETURN provided that their replacements are built somewhere within Okinawa. Of these 5 facilities, Futenma's relocation has already been agreed upon, but as for the other 4 facilities negotiations will be held between the two governments. But why negotiations? Note that I'm taking issue only with those 6 facilities that are mentioned in the 2006 Roadmap and not with some other facilities that are mentioned in the 1996 SACO Final Report. Even as for the SACO agreement a lot must be taken issue with, the Takae helipad issue, particularly.

  I have been hesitant to criticize your English ability because I know you are not a native speaker, but as you continue to incorrectly characterize the 2006 ATARA accord, and fail to fact check your view with your own government, I have to be frank - you do not have sufficient knowledge of English to understand and comprehend the language of the agreement, as evidenced below:

  The other 5 facilities, Futenma included, of course, are also promised for TOTAL RETURN provided that their replacements are built somewhere within Okinawa. Of these 5 facilities, Futenma's relocation has already been agreed upon, but as for the other 4 facilities negotiations will be held between the two governments

  As I have said numerous times, and as I have implored you to verify with your own government, Kinser, Lester, and Foster are not going to be relocated within the prefecture - they, and the people that work on those bases, are moving to Guam. If there are critical functions within those bases, such as a telephone switch or other communications buildings, that are required for those forces remaining on Okinawa, then that building must be relocated to an existing US facility (Kadena, Torii Station, Hansen, Schwab, etc.). Go talk to MOFA or the Base Affairs Office of OPP and they will verify this - stop propagating deliberately false information.

  You suggest me to show my "action plan to make things better." Does it mean that I have to bring up an alternative plan in place of the Henoko relocation plan? Do you think I have to? Does the property owner have an obligation to find a relocation site and build a completely furnished house for a tenant when the former asks the latter to vacate the current site?

  If you oppose the solution negotiated between both governments, then it is incumbent upon you to offer an alternative - one that can be executed. You have never done that. If you don't, again, then that means you are not serious about solving the problem, or have another agenda.

  To this you may respond, "then Futenma will remain at the present site." That's like a gangster's intimidation and extortion. An illegal and immoral action all by itself.

  Well, let me add "gangster, illegal and immoral" to the long list of names you have tried to insult me with. But again, making personal attacks says more about you and your lack of any strategy to make things better, than it does about me. I happen to think it is the height of immorality to say to the Okinawa people that you are fighting to improve their lives and reduce the US military burden, but then doing everything you can to stall any progress and perpetuate the status quo.

  This is only my opinion, but I think it's because you really don't want to see any progress. Your visceral hatred for the US loses some of its power if there is a significant, meaningful reduction in the US military footprint on the island.

  Less windmills to tilt at......

  Article Unavailable

Follow us