JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
0
voiceofokinawa
Globalwatcher,
You suggest 4 ways to stimulate Japanese economy.
Your 1st suggestion, fiscal consolidation, has been done frequently. You suggest to increase jobs to stimulate economy, but shouldn't it be the other way around? Jobs grow only when economy expands. Tweaking monetary policy at the right time is of course necessary and important. I think the government has done that from time to time. So the only big suggestion to consider you are making is a tax hike.
I am opposed to a sales tax hike right now. The government can find many untapped resources to increment national revenues without a sales tax hike. And I think the lavish "sympathy budget" given to the U.S. Forces is one of such untapped resources. How do you respond?
Posted in: Ozawa willing to meet Noda but says he won't budge on opposition to tax hike
0
voiceofokinawa
Globalwatcher,
It's interesting that you suggest JapanGal not to like Ozawa, asking "Why are you for Ozawa?" I assume you are an American citizen. If I urge you not to like Romeny or Gingritch, what would you react? Seriously, can I ask you why you are against Ozawa so much?
In Japanese politics, there's been an Ozawa-bashing campaign gong on for some time, as you may know. It's quite probable that Ozawa knows well how not to raise sales tax and at the same time find ways to get rid of the decades-long economic doldrums, thus meeting the nation's financial needs for Tohoku's reconstruction.
He may try what Seiharinokaze (May. 26, 2012 - 05:20PM JST) lists as areas for squeezing money out of for the nation's coffers. He may also try his hand to reduce the sympathy budget for these U.S. military bases. Globalwatcher, is this the reason why you are afraid of Ozawa's resurgence so much?
Posted in: Ozawa willing to meet Noda but says he won't budge on opposition to tax hike
0
voiceofokinawa
Smith (May. 26, 2012 - 12:46PM JST):
I don't think that "keeping US troops stationed in Japan (to this massive degree) is absolutely vital to the defense of the nation," as you rhetorically claim. That's why I suggest that anything pertaining to the U.S. military presence in Japan (Okinawa, in particular) be scrutinized minutely -- in terms of the size and number of bases, together with service members that you think necessary for Japan's defense and, above all, in terms of the cost -- the money the Japanese taxpayers must pay. You know many of those bases are regarded by Washington's war strategists as staging posts for troops' overseas deployment.
Posted in: Ozawa willing to meet Noda but says he won't budge on opposition to tax hike
-1
voiceofokinawa
To uibikit (May. 26, 2012 - 12:31AM JST ):
What you point out is quite understandable: How could Japan balance public spending with national revenues without raising consumption tax?
Remember, however, that the public spending you are talking about must include that extraordinarily lavish spending on the U.S. Forces stationed in Japan. The cost for this foreign military presence and the bases the U.S. Forces use for free is absurdly too large to the degree that one can call it military occupation. Why should Japanese taxpayers bear the burden of maintaining such foreign military occupation?
The expenses for hosting the U.S. Forces should not be a sanctuary subject not to scrutiny. Cut and reduce this bloated "sympathy budget" first, and we will listen to Noda's call for a tax hike.
Posted in: Ozawa willing to meet Noda but says he won't budge on opposition to tax hike
0
voiceofokinawa
The island of Okinawa in 1945 was like the Tohoku region that was devastated by great earthquakes with almost all houses washed away by tsunamis. In post-war Okinawa, taking advantage of this nothingness, the U.S. occupation forces freely encroached upon private land -- towns, villages, farms and schools all cheek by jowl -- to build an enormous number of bases.
Can the U.S. Marines do the same thing in Tohoku today? Of course, not. Because it would violate all manner of law as well as basic human ethics.
But why do the negotiators of both governments turn a blind eye to the fact that the Marines did as much the same thing in post-war Okinawa, blatantly violating international law and built such bases as Futenma Air Station? Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land stipulates that private property must not be confiscated in an occupied area.
The Futenma issue has been nonnegotiable for starters because the air base sits on illegally confiscated land -- stolen goods, that is. Dealing stolen goods is severely punished in any country in the world.
So what's it that the U.S. Defense Secretary is praising so much? Apparently, it's the money Tokyo promised to pay for the construction on Guam of infrastructure for 4,000 military personnel and their families plus newly appended maintenance costs for to-be-refurbished military facilities on Tinian and Pagan islands, with Tokyo's share totaling up to 2.8 billion dollars. Washington says the total costs for the marines' transfer from Okinawa and base maintenance costs in Tinian and Pagan will amount to 8.6 billion dollars so that Japan's share is putatively only about one-third.
The catch is: Will the U.S. side appropriate two-thirds of the total 5.7 billion dollars albeit in the face of the U.S. Armed Services Committee's strong objection to unnecessary spending by the military? I doubt it.
The bottom line: all costs for this U.S. military realignment, by nature the U.S. military's own house cleaning, might be carried out solely with Japanese taxpayers' money. No doubt, Tokyo will never fail to regret for what it stupidly agreed to with Washington not only in regard to Futenma but also the marines' Guam relocation.
Posted in: Panetta hails 'important' deal on Marines in Japan
2
voiceofokinawa
To Fadamor (Apr. 26, 2012 - 11:09PM JST ):
So those marines are stationed in Okinawa to ultimately defend the United States of America, not Okinawa nor Japan? But I think you're right to the point. There's no doubt that those U.S. bases are fundamentally for the defense of the U.S. mainland. A hostile foreign country, if any, does not attack THE ISLAND; rather, it attacks U.S. BASES on the island and, as you allude, the United States of America.
If so, what's the reason for Okinawa to shoulder this preposterous sacrifice, the U.S. Marines maintaining 16 bases and facilities, the U.S. Air Force and the Navy 7 each, and the U.S. Army 4, occupying about 20% of the land mass of Okinawa island? Can you explain why 75% of the maintenance cost of those bases and facilities must be borne by Japanese taxpayers (that of course include Okinawans)?
Posted in: U.S. concerns over Okinawa base plans prompt Japan to delay announcement
0
voiceofokinawa
The premise that some posters seem to take for granted on this thread is that U.S. service members are stationed in Japan at the behest of the Japanese government in order to defend Japan. Schematically speaking, yes, the U.S. service members in Japan can be regarded as salaried mercenaries to fend off enemies from invading and attacking Japan.
But if so, why do some of them, especially marines, train here and deploy to other places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Some pundits dub their bases as staging posts for deployment elsewhere. And yet, 75% of the maintenance cost of bases and the transportation of troops and heavy weapons to and from training areas is shouldered by Japanese taxpayers.
These soldiers are the direct off-shoot of the invading U.S. forces during WW II that invaded and occupied Japan (Okinawa). Japan formally recovered its sovereignty in 1951 in exchange for signing a security treaty under which the U.S. Forces were to be given the same extraterritorial privileges as they had enjoyed as occupation forces.
There are 88 U.S. bases and facilities in Japan today (33 in Okinawa). So virtual occupation has continued for the past 67 years to this day and may continue into the future. Anyone who wants to dip his toes in the waters of the U.S. military base issue in Japan and in Okinawa must bear this fact in mind. Please don't pretend that this U.S. military presence is for the defense of Japan nor demand us to do this or that -- like relocate Futenma to Henoko in northern Okinawa. Futenma must be returned to Okinawa immediately if so demanded. The U.S. has no legitimate right to counter this demand. Period.
Posted in: U.S. Marines will not be transferred from Okinawa to Iwakuni
-3
voiceofokinawa
Laguna,
Wrongdoings are justified if their fruit served current needs? Is that what your father taught you as a child? Is that what you will teach your children, if you have any? Terrorists will buy your argument with a grin.
You say primary responsibility for the base issue rests with Tokyo but not with Washington. No, that's not true. Washington wants to maintain the status quo of military presence forever by all means. Justification for it always comes after that.
During the Cold War era, it was the communist threat that served well for this excessive military presence. Today, it's North Korea's missile testing -- and the rise of China. In the future, who knows, it may be Japan itself. The genie (that is, Japan's militarism) must not be let out of the bottle, as some posters in other threads argue, carelessly betraying their real minds.
Posted in: U.S. Marines will not be transferred from Okinawa to Iwakuni
-1
voiceofokinawa
To Laguna, again:
Besides, we Okinawans don't feel this excessive U.S. military presence is of any benefit to us at all. On the contrary, it's unnecessary burdens and an indescribable sacrifice forced upon us. Your contention that closing one base in one area and relocating it to another place is a bad equation that may be correct in calculation but totally wrong in morality.
Posted in: U.S. Marines will not be transferred from Okinawa to Iwakuni
-2
voiceofokinawa
Laguna (Mar. 16, 2012 - 09:10PM JST ),
I'm flabbergasted to hear you say "the injustices of the past do not change the realities of the present." How dare you say robbery could be justified as far as it had been done in the past but were benefitting now.
Posted in: U.S. Marines will not be transferred from Okinawa to Iwakuni
-1
voiceofokinawa
To Laguna (Mar. 16, 2012 - 03:08PM JST ) and smithinjapan (Mar. 16, 2012 - 09:13AM JST):
Most of the land the Futenma air station or any other U.S. base sits on is private properties that were encroached upon with impunity by the invading U.S. forces immediately and some time after WW II -- in violation of Article 46 of Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which the U.S. also ratified. In other words, the land is stolen goods.
The U.S. side, then, cannot demand a replacement for Futenma or set any conditions whatsoever for force reduction in Okinawa. So it's totally off the mark to say, "The Okinawan government is reaping what it sows (自業自得)." Let the world and man's common sense judge who is acting a villain here.
Posted in: U.S. Marines will not be transferred from Okinawa to Iwakuni
-2
voiceofokinawa
Hatoyama at least tried to pry open the stalemated bilateral relations and give the Japanese people a ray of hope for true independence. So criticizing Hatoyama by a former Obama government hand means Japan must never try again to change the status quo of being a U.S. vassal. That's the reason why Kan and Noda retreated to the same old policy line as the LDP's vis-a-vis the U.S.
Posted in: Ex-Obama aide criticizes Hatoyama
0
voiceofokinawa
Hatoyama correctly understood the current Japan-U.S. relations are like those of a suzerain and a colony -- Japan still a dependency or client state subservient to the U.S. The world community knows all about this fact. The Futenma issue snugly exemplifies this aberrant situation. Hatoyama dipped his toes into waters of these taken-for-granted foreign relations and tried to address it, only to meet with an all-out attack from Washington. Bader's book may tell a fly-on-the-wall account of how Hatoyama was dragged down from power by the Obama administration. Or does it?
Posted in: Ex-Obama aide criticizes Hatoyama
-1
voiceofokinawa
lincolnman,
The 100% conviction of mine that North Korea would not launch nuclear warheads against the U.S. is based on the conclusion I arrived at in my discussion. If you wouldn't agree with me, refute it rationally and point out how and where I am wrong.
You seem to be barking at me only emotionally simply because you can't find any appropriate words of justification for this excessive U.S. military presence in Japan (Okinawa, in particular).
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
lincolnman,
Here's the number of nuclear warheads the two countries each have，if you want to know:
As of 2009, the U.S. has 8,500 nuclear warheads, of which 1,950 are active. On the other hand, North Korea has 10 warheads but no active ones.
Of course, they will develop active warheads eventually. Even so, do you think NK will launch nuclear-loaded missiles against the U.S. because they insanely believe they can defeat the U.S. and win war?
As I said above, toward the end of the Korean War they realized that the U.S. was dead serious about using nuclear weapons against them and Chinese troops across the border. That may partly explain why armistice was signed between them and the Allied Forces.
The USS Pueblo incident occurred in 1968 when the two countries were not at all-out war. Could NK fear U.S. retaliation with nuclear warheads at the time? I doubt it. A number of skirmishes occurred after that incident and many more would be expected to occur in the future. They know and the world knows that the U.S. can never use nuclear weapons to settle such skirmishes.
But they know and the world knows that if NK launched missile attacks against the U.S. mainland, the U.S. would certainly retaliate against NK with its overwhelming military power and annihilate it. So NK will never attack the U.S. with their small number of shoddy nuclear weapons ("shoddy" compared with U.S. weapons of mass destruction).
Thus, your supposed example in your post above (Mar. 03, 2012 - 04:14PM JST ) is 100% unlikely to occur. It's a fantasy which you want to occur so that Japan could be urged to revise its war-renouncing constitution and open the way for collective defense (or offense) and fight future global wars along with the U.S.
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
linconman,
How many nuclear weapons does North Korea have and how many does the U.S.? As I questioned above, for what reason and purpose do they launch nuclear-loaded missiles against the U.S., fully knowing that such action would annhialate their country?
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
Correction:
In addition, Japan must shoulder annual land fees (Y165.8 billion), grants-in-aid to municipalities that host bases, compensations to residents victimized by noise pollutions caused by U.S. military aircraft and indemnity for various military-derived accidents.
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
Of course, the situation you describe is very unfair if two relevant countries are on an equal footing. The U.S. already has 88 bases and installations in Japan. Many of those in Okinawa occupy private land freely encroached upon by the U.S. forces immediately or some time after the war in violation of international law. And 75% of their maintenance cost is borne by Japan.
In addition, Japan must shoulder annual land fees (Y165,8), grants-in-aid to municipalities that host bases, compensations to residents victimized by noise pollutions caused by U.S. military aircraft and indemnity for various military-derived accidents.
The situation I describe is real and not a big if like your supposed example. "If ifs and ans were pots and pans, there'd be no trade for tinkers."
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
If I interpret it correctly, North Korea realized toward the end of the Korean War that the U.S. was dead serious about attacking them with nuclear weapons. Gen. MacArthur insisted to drop nuclear bombs on North Korean soil to end the war quickly. But President Truman rejected that tactics across the board. Finally, the general was fired from his post as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Japan (GHQ).
Learning a lesson from this episode, I think North Korea decided to develop and possess nuclear weapons themselves -- to deter the U.S. from launching nuclear attacks against them. Today's nuclear crisis on Korean Peninsula is therefore the making of the U.S.'s own.
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue
-1
voiceofokinawa
lincolnman,
You are talking about the worst-case scenario imaginable. North Korea launching nuclear-headed missiles at the U.S. mainland? For what purpose? That means the total annhialation of their country. They are fully aware of this, so I'm 100 % sure that they will never commit such folly and stupidity.
You seem to think the Marines stationed on Okinawa are working as bulwarks against missile attacks by North Korea and therefore that Futenma's function must be kept intact on Okinawa. I think it's a real nonsense.
And you are suggesting Japan to revise its war-renouncing constitution to deal with this folly?
Posted in: Noda apologizes to Okinawa for DPJ's handling of U.S. base issue