Article

2005-08-16 China-Japan-Koreas

Japan opposition vows to pull troops from Iraq by December

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-08-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The reasonable course of action (it being inscrutable Japan), would be to start airing interviews with Japanese soldiers: touting the great togetherness and unity of Japan, expressing pride at being permitted the honor to serve, and apologizing for not doing more. (I'm sure that the subtleties would be a lot greater, but it would leave Japanese young men on the street itching to sign up.)

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-16 00:20|| 2005-08-16 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Article: But there is strong public opposition to the dispatch from fears that it could draw Tokyo into the turmoil in Iraq.

This is why I'm growing more and more opposed to the network of entangliing alliances that we have in place. We are committed to defending these people from external threats. How does this make any sense, if they won't offer us even a token bit of assistance over a minor conflict like Iraq? We are spending a lot of money and putting up our young men as potential human sacrifices, not to mention setting up ourselves as targets for their enemies. It makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-16 15:36|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-16 15:36|| Front Page Top

#3 quibble: we are commited to helping Japan if Japan is attacked. They are committed to helping us if we are attacked. We are NOT committed to helping them if they attempt to preempt an attack on Japan, or if they respond to an attack on Japan with an attempt to reshape the region from which the attack came from, no matter how wise it is to do so. And ditto for Japans obligations to us.

and ditto for NATO.

None of these alliance apply to a situation like Iraq. The notion that non-support in Iraq means the alliance is worthless is silly. Now any of these alliances may well be worthless, but that must be shown on its own.

And its even sillier wrt to Japan than it is WRT france and germany, since Japan HAS sent troops to Iraq, and still has them there.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-08-16 16:00|| 2005-08-16 16:00|| Front Page Top

#4 LH: we are commited to helping Japan if Japan is attacked. They are committed to helping us if we are attacked. We are NOT committed to helping them if they attempt to preempt an attack on Japan, or if they respond to an attack on Japan with an attempt to reshape the region from which the attack came from, no matter how wise it is to do so. And ditto for Japans obligations to us.

and ditto for NATO.

This is nonsense on stilts. No one is going to try to invade Uncle Sam. North America is too remote and difficult to resupply for potential invaders to even try. Not to mention we have thousands of nukes. Japan is right next to four potential belligerents. The fact is that the mutuality of both NATO and our treaty with Japan exists only in name. We're on the hook - they're not.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-16 17:36|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-16 17:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Ima recall there were several NATO AWACS running 24hrs a day over North America couple of years back. A minor point tho.

Posted by Shipman 2005-08-16 17:46|| 2005-08-16 17:46|| Front Page Top

#6 As a practical matter, Zhang is correct. Our non-Anglosphere allies are free riders. What we see in Japan is a special case. Their passivity was imposed by us. Changing it will be delicate for both of us. But Dear Leader has made it necessary and so it is starting. So now the Japanese need to start thinking about some things they have been able to ignore heretofor.

I also question whether it was and is not a good idea to have them hanging on as free riders. Would we really prefer to have a rearmed Europe? Think of what Chiraq would be doing now if he had effective and effective military with state of the art weapons systems.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-16 17:51|| 2005-08-16 17:51|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:24 Alaska Paul
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:07 Red Dog
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:05 Alaska Paul
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 RWV
22:50 Frank G
22:49 Frank G
22:46 Phil Fraering
22:45 Red Dog
22:43 Frank G
22:33 tzsenator
22:17 mac
22:17 phil_b
22:12 FeralCat
22:02 mac
21:56 Silentbrick
21:50 Frank G
21:38 Barbara Skolaut