About 600 residents of a town on May 20 assembled to express their opposition to the U.S. plan to construct a counter-urban guerrilla training facility at U.S. Marines Corps Camp Hansen in the central Okinawan town of Kin.
The town mayor and the town assembly chair were among participants at the rally sponsored by the Kin Town government and its assembly. The rally adopted a unanimous resolution in protest against the U.S. forces showing no intention to cancel the construction plan as well as against the Japanese government that approved the plan in disregard of the town residents' strong opposition.
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
In 1988, the U.S. forces forcibly constructed an anti-urban guerrilla training facility, but aroused strong local opposition, and the then U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle had to dismantle the facility in 1992.
However in 1995, the U.S. forces constructed a building for shooting, a facility for assault exercises, and an outdoor live fire training range without informing the local residents.
On the grounds that these facilities became too old, the U.S. forces want to have a new urban-warfare training facility.
This was brought to light in reply from a foreign ministry official to Japanese Communist Party Akamine Seiken at a House of Representative Committee meeting on March 12.
About 60 percent of Kin Town's land is occupied by U.S. bases, with more than 6,000 U.S. marines in the 10,000-population town. For half a century, the town has suffered from accidents that include stray bullets and the noise pollution caused by live-fire training. (end)
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2384/usforces.html
Full Version: An Okinawan Town Rises Up In Opposition To U.s.
QUOTE (Ogumo @ May 28 2004, 08:18 PM)
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
To minimize cases of 'friendly fire' in their own country, no doubt.
QUOTE (Ogumo @ May 28 2004, 08:18 PM)
About 600 residents of a town on May 20 assembled to express their opposition to the U.S. plan to construct a counter-urban guerrilla training facility at U.S. Marines Corps Camp Hansen in the central Okinawan town of Kin.
The town mayor and the town assembly chair were among participants at the rally sponsored by the Kin Town government and its assembly. The rally adopted a unanimous resolution in protest against the U.S. forces showing no intention to cancel the construction plan as well as against the Japanese government that approved the plan in disregard of the town residents' strong opposition.
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
In 1988, the U.S. forces forcibly constructed an anti-urban guerrilla training facility, but aroused strong local opposition, and the then U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle had to dismantle the facility in 1992.
However in 1995, the U.S. forces constructed a building for shooting, a facility for assault exercises, and an outdoor live fire training range without informing the local residents.
On the grounds that these facilities became too old, the U.S. forces want to have a new urban-warfare training facility.
This was brought to light in reply from a foreign ministry official to Japanese Communist Party Akamine Seiken at a House of Representative Committee meeting on March 12.
About 60 percent of Kin Town's land is occupied by U.S. bases, with more than 6,000 U.S. marines in the 10,000-population town. For half a century, the town has suffered from accidents that include stray bullets and the noise pollution caused by live-fire training. (end)
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2384/usforces.html
The town mayor and the town assembly chair were among participants at the rally sponsored by the Kin Town government and its assembly. The rally adopted a unanimous resolution in protest against the U.S. forces showing no intention to cancel the construction plan as well as against the Japanese government that approved the plan in disregard of the town residents' strong opposition.
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
In 1988, the U.S. forces forcibly constructed an anti-urban guerrilla training facility, but aroused strong local opposition, and the then U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle had to dismantle the facility in 1992.
However in 1995, the U.S. forces constructed a building for shooting, a facility for assault exercises, and an outdoor live fire training range without informing the local residents.
On the grounds that these facilities became too old, the U.S. forces want to have a new urban-warfare training facility.
This was brought to light in reply from a foreign ministry official to Japanese Communist Party Akamine Seiken at a House of Representative Committee meeting on March 12.
About 60 percent of Kin Town's land is occupied by U.S. bases, with more than 6,000 U.S. marines in the 10,000-population town. For half a century, the town has suffered from accidents that include stray bullets and the noise pollution caused by live-fire training. (end)
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2384/usforces.html
Ok this article is being really desperate. Noise pollution???
Obviously there isn't enough support for the writer so s/he is trying a lot to come up with a reason why the americans are bad. But of all the reasons, you have to include NOISE POLLUTION?
Plus this person didn't state the number of incidents which is bad journal(newspaper) writing.
QUOTE (Triste @ Jun 1 2004, 06:13 PM)
QUOTE (Ogumo @ May 28 2004, 08:18 PM)
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
To minimize cases of 'friendly fire' in their own country, no doubt.
I agree.
AtlantisStar:
I think the noise pollution complaints are reasonable.
QUOTE (Ogumo @ Jun 2 2004, 12:26 AM)
AtlantisStar:
I think the noise pollution complaints are reasonable.
I think the noise pollution complaints are reasonable.
Considering my neighbour complained of my guitar playing at 11pm on just ONE occasion, they are quite reasonable.
America has no business in Okinawa.
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
QUOTE (Suzu @ Jun 6 2004, 10:28 PM)
America has no business in Okinawa.
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
QUOTE
America has no business in Okinawa.
There business is to wage war through out the rest of the world from okinawa. Did you not know? They are proud of it too.
QUOTE
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
I think if the government pushed the americans would begin to leave just like in south korea. I think this generation has the most people that are opposed to their occupation. This is a good thing.
QUOTE
But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
Japan should have taken complete control back in the year 1992. Okinawa is not the only place that has american bases. They ALL need to go and be returned to japan.
Hai Ogumo-sama, we both are Japanese nationalist. 
I agree with you. If Japan pushes, the Americans will leave, exactly like SK. Except Japan is afraid that either America or its Asian neighbors (especially SK and to a lesser extent the Phillipnes and China) will protest that Japan is 're-arming' its troops.
I think that Japan should be allowed to make its own desicisons. Just because Japan has a military doesn't mean it won't gobble Asia up.
I agree with you. If Japan pushes, the Americans will leave, exactly like SK. Except Japan is afraid that either America or its Asian neighbors (especially SK and to a lesser extent the Phillipnes and China) will protest that Japan is 're-arming' its troops.
I think that Japan should be allowed to make its own desicisons. Just because Japan has a military doesn't mean it won't gobble Asia up.
There is a huge problem that the US must face if it chooses to move out of Okinawa. If it moves out of Okinawa, then they must move out of Tokyo and if all of the US bases are removed then other countries are going to want to have their American bases removed. Especially Korea. Korea has even more US bases than Japan. Korea is not going to be silent the day US forces head home from Japan.
QUOTE (Suzu @ Jun 6 2004, 11:56 PM)
Hai Ogumo-sama, we both are Japanese nationalist.
I agree with you. If Japan pushes, the Americans will leave, exactly like SK. Except Japan is afraid that either America or its Asian neighbors (especially SK and to a lesser extent the Phillipnes and China) will protest that Japan is 're-arming' its troops.
I think that Japan should be allowed to make its own desicisons. Just because Japan has a military doesn't mean it won't gobble Asia up.
I agree with you. If Japan pushes, the Americans will leave, exactly like SK. Except Japan is afraid that either America or its Asian neighbors (especially SK and to a lesser extent the Phillipnes and China) will protest that Japan is 're-arming' its troops.
I think that Japan should be allowed to make its own desicisons. Just because Japan has a military doesn't mean it won't gobble Asia up.
QUOTE
Hai Ogumo-sama, we both are Japanese nationalist.
Really? Interesting. America born?
QUOTE
Except Japan is afraid that either America or its Asian neighbors (especially SK and to a lesser extent the Phillipnes and China) will protest that Japan is 're-arming' its troops.
Let us talk about this. The americans will eventually shut up. They have short attention spans with issues like this. They are more likely to fear china than to fear japan rearming. This is a good situation for us to exploit. Let them focus on china and leave us alone for a change. Let us talk about our "friends" in asia. Japanese people must realize. It is not about what they think. Those countries have military and are expanding their arms. Japan should be able to defend it's self from any naval or air attack. Japan should also be able to retaliate with nuclear and biological weapons if need be.
We as a people have to stop caring about their opinion. Those countries will think what they want anyway. The ideal situation would be for japan to appologize to these countries and THEN rearm it's self. However rearming is neccisary. With our with out the blessing from our neighbors.
QUOTE
I think that Japan should be allowed to make its own desicisons.
Our neighbors do not care about that. They have their own self interest in mind only. That is understandable. In any case japanese need to WANT to make their own desicions. After koizumi's term I hope for a PM that will say "hey these americans are exploiting our land. We dont need them here in the year 2004 it is time for them to go". If that ever happens I will be truly happy.
QUOTE
Just because Japan has a military doesn't mean it won't gobble Asia up.
It is incredibly unlikely. Infact it is more realistic that china will gobble asia before japan would these days.
barkerintokyo:
QUOTE
other countries are going to want to have their American bases removed. Especially Korea. Korea has even more US bases than Japan.
That is the korean problem. Japan has had to deal with the americans for much longer. So it is only fair that japan has them removed first. After they leave japan I dont really care about what the americans do about their bases in the rest of the world. That is none of my concern.
QUOTE
Korea is not going to be silent the day US forces head home from Japan.
Of course not. Just because they will complain does not mean anyone has to listen.
Suzu:
Tell me about some of your ideas and what you want for japan this century. I am interested.
I dont blame the people.
there are some places US forces just SHOULDN'T be.
there are some places US forces just SHOULDN'T be.
there are some places US forces just SHOULDN'T be.
Damn skippy.
Damn skippy.
Dad's American, Mom-Japanese, America born.
The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country. Its everywhere, the government, the Constitution, and they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there. ALso, the fact that their army is called "The Self Defence Forces".
I have no problem with the Liberal Democratic Party. I am pretty politically conservative. But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans. Japan is an Asian country. Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan, allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan? How is Japan different from Korea?
Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it. Yeah right. Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people. It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans.
The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country. Its everywhere, the government, the Constitution, and they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there. ALso, the fact that their army is called "The Self Defence Forces".
I have no problem with the Liberal Democratic Party. I am pretty politically conservative. But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans. Japan is an Asian country. Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan, allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan? How is Japan different from Korea?
Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it. Yeah right. Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people. It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans.
[quote=Suzu,Jun 9 2004, 01:31 AM] Dad's American, Mom-Japanese, America born.
The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country. Its everywhere, the government, the Constitution, and they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there. ALso, the fact that their army is called "The Self Defence Forces".
I have no problem with the Liberal Democratic Party. I am pretty politically conservative. But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans. Japan is an Asian country. Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan, allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan? How is Japan different from Korea?
Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it. Yeah right. Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people. It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans. [/quote]
[quote]Dad's American, Mom-Japanese, America born.[/quote]
hmm... I see.
[quote]The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country.[/quote]
Oh no japan is actually a pacifist country. Dangerously pacifist. The left wing has brain washed japan to the point of damage. The way japanese think is irrational.
[quote]they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there.[/quote]
That is the part that infuriates me. The americans will not protect japan from a major threat. I do not believe that. Perhaps in the past they would have definately protected japan from the U.S.S.R. Not these days though. In anycase japan is fully capable of protecting it's self. That is what needs to happen. The americans have far too much control over us.
[quote]But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans.[/quote]
Yeah. We need a anti america pm or a pm that only has japan's interest in mind. That is the only way to correct some of the damage being done. Koizumi his entire thing is "u.s. japan" relationship. When in truth the only one really winning is america. That is unacceptable. Japan always gets the worst deal and always will until someone puts their foot down and says NO to america.
[quote]Japan is an Asian country[/quote]
Not if it keeps this up.
[quote]Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan[/quote]
That is a good thing. Those troops could be in japan if they werent in sk.
[quote]allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan?[/quote]
Whoa...wait do you actually WANT more japanese men and women helping the americans in that war zone? The number japan sent is sufficient. I personally do not care about helping america in anyway. However koizumi bent alot of rules to do what he did. That is the only reason that I support that. However 3500 japanese sdf is not needed. If japan wanted to send more men do you think america would reject? I don't.
[quote]How is Japan different from Korea?[/quote]
Koreans act in their own self interest and go uncaring to other countries opinions. They are also ending their subservience to america it would seem. Japan is the opposite at least at the moment.
[quote]Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it.[/quote]
The very notion is ridiculous and unlikely. The americans are not the ones holding japan back from rearming I dont believe. I think the japanese are holding themselves back more than anything. The "everyone be peaceful we will be a example" type of thinking is dangerous. Especially for japan.
[quote]Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people.[/quote]
Now I don't know about all of that. I definately agree that japan should re arm and begin to greatly expand the navy and airforce. Also arm with nuclear and biological weapons. However...that part with the Imperial army should not be the case. I can hear the outcry now. Japan should give the army a inspiring name if we ever rearm. Just not that.
[quote]It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans.[/quote]
Indeed. It is very dangerous to rely on a selfish country thousands of miles away for military protection. Especially when you can do the job yourself much better than they can.
The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country. Its everywhere, the government, the Constitution, and they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there. ALso, the fact that their army is called "The Self Defence Forces".
I have no problem with the Liberal Democratic Party. I am pretty politically conservative. But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans. Japan is an Asian country. Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan, allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan? How is Japan different from Korea?
Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it. Yeah right. Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people. It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans. [/quote]
[quote]Dad's American, Mom-Japanese, America born.[/quote]
hmm... I see.
[quote]The Japanese people have been brainwashed to believe that they are living in a pacifist country.[/quote]
Oh no japan is actually a pacifist country. Dangerously pacifist. The left wing has brain washed japan to the point of damage. The way japanese think is irrational.
[quote]they also think that they are an American protectorate, with American troops and such being stationed there.[/quote]
That is the part that infuriates me. The americans will not protect japan from a major threat. I do not believe that. Perhaps in the past they would have definately protected japan from the U.S.S.R. Not these days though. In anycase japan is fully capable of protecting it's self. That is what needs to happen. The americans have far too much control over us.
[quote]But I am problems with the Japanese kiss @$$ prime minsters who kiss the @$$ of the Americans.[/quote]
Yeah. We need a anti america pm or a pm that only has japan's interest in mind. That is the only way to correct some of the damage being done. Koizumi his entire thing is "u.s. japan" relationship. When in truth the only one really winning is america. That is unacceptable. Japan always gets the worst deal and always will until someone puts their foot down and says NO to america.
[quote]Japan is an Asian country[/quote]
Not if it keeps this up.
[quote]Why does Korea, who has American troops, if not more than Japan[/quote]
That is a good thing. Those troops could be in japan if they werent in sk.
[quote]allowed to have an army and send 3500 troops to Iraq? Why can't Japan?[/quote]
Whoa...wait do you actually WANT more japanese men and women helping the americans in that war zone? The number japan sent is sufficient. I personally do not care about helping america in anyway. However koizumi bent alot of rules to do what he did. That is the only reason that I support that. However 3500 japanese sdf is not needed. If japan wanted to send more men do you think america would reject? I don't.
[quote]How is Japan different from Korea?[/quote]
Koreans act in their own self interest and go uncaring to other countries opinions. They are also ending their subservience to america it would seem. Japan is the opposite at least at the moment.
[quote]Oh yeah, cause Japan will re-arm and attack and conquer Asia, I get it.[/quote]
The very notion is ridiculous and unlikely. The americans are not the ones holding japan back from rearming I dont believe. I think the japanese are holding themselves back more than anything. The "everyone be peaceful we will be a example" type of thinking is dangerous. Especially for japan.
[quote]Japan should rearm, name its troops Imperial Army, not to conquer Asia but to give inspiration to the people.[/quote]
Now I don't know about all of that. I definately agree that japan should re arm and begin to greatly expand the navy and airforce. Also arm with nuclear and biological weapons. However...that part with the Imperial army should not be the case. I can hear the outcry now. Japan should give the army a inspiring name if we ever rearm. Just not that.
[quote]It should be able to protect itself, not be protected by the Americans.[/quote]
Indeed. It is very dangerous to rely on a selfish country thousands of miles away for military protection. Especially when you can do the job yourself much better than they can.
Ogumo, I didn't mean send troops to Iraq, I mean generally have a large army and not be treated like a protectorate. Personally, I'm glad Koizumi sent troops to Iraq. He gave Japan a more independent look in the national arena.
The base will be constructed in the end. 
^ You must be very happy on the inside.
Not really I was just pointing out how whipped your government is. I believe we should reduce our bases in japan and give you guys a couple nukes.
I believe you people should leave japan completely.
QUOTE (Ogumo @ Jun 10 2004, 09:43 PM)
I believe you people should leave japan completely.
Agreed
QUOTE (Ogumo @ Jun 10 2004, 09:43 PM)
I believe you people should leave japan completely.
I don't think so, We need a presence in that part of the world and japan makes a good spot. We need to watch out for future competition
. But if you want the US to leave so bad bring it up with your government. Oh yeah i forgot we own you. 
Whatever Japan says is not going to change the minds of Americans. The people who decide when the American forces leave Japan are Americans. Whatever the Japanese say and the Koreans say and the Chinese say are going to factor into the decisions that the Americans make but they are not going to make any Asian decide what is going to be the fate of the most powerful army in the world. They will hear China and Korea's opinions: Japan should not rearm because they are a threat to western civilization. Currently, majority of Japan also believes Japan should not rearm. Americans want to stay in Japan because of the great strategic location and Japan is the most enjoyable base for any army recruit to stay at (you can drink and drive, rape, loot, beat people, urinate in the streets, do anything basically because of diplomatic immunity). So, summing up all the opinions, the American decision is to stay in Japan. Now, if the scenario changed and Japan decided they wanted the American forces out, then Americans would be forced to think about a few things: Japan is one of their most important trade partners; America cannot risk anything happening to this trade. BUT, Japan also relies on America for their economy too. Japan needs America more than America needs Japan. Therefore, final conclusion: Regardless of what Japan does, America will decide to keep their troops stationed here in Japan. America knows that Japan is their b!tch and that Japan would do anything for America. Japan cannot rearm, Japan cannot force America out, and Japan will be submissive to all countries and that's what the people want.
QUOTE (Suzu @ Jun 6 2004, 10:28 PM)
America has no business in Okinawa.
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
I know that it is a 'base' for operations in the Pacific and such, but in all honesty, is it mandatory to have a base in Okinawa? Or troops in Japan in general?
From my college history class and my own knowledge, I know Okinawa was at one point part of China and Japan jointly ( as in paying tribute to both countries) and that Japan eventually gobbled it up in 1875. It was an American colony from 1945 to 1972. But shouldn't Japan take complete control of Okinawa now?>
the americans have no bus. in japan. and i also agree that they want to build a military training camp in japan to minamize casaulties in their own country.
QUOTE (Ogumo @ May 28 2004, 08:18 PM)
About 600 residents of a town on May 20 assembled to express their opposition to the U.S. plan to construct a counter-urban guerrilla training facility at U.S. Marines Corps Camp Hansen in the central Okinawan town of Kin.
The town mayor and the town assembly chair were among participants at the rally sponsored by the Kin Town government and its assembly. The rally adopted a unanimous resolution in protest against the U.S. forces showing no intention to cancel the construction plan as well as against the Japanese government that approved the plan in disregard of the town residents' strong opposition.
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
In 1988, the U.S. forces forcibly constructed an anti-urban guerrilla training facility, but aroused strong local opposition, and the then U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle had to dismantle the facility in 1992.
However in 1995, the U.S. forces constructed a building for shooting, a facility for assault exercises, and an outdoor live fire training range without informing the local residents.
On the grounds that these facilities became too old, the U.S. forces want to have a new urban-warfare training facility.
This was brought to light in reply from a foreign ministry official to Japanese Communist Party Akamine Seiken at a House of Representative Committee meeting on March 12.
About 60 percent of Kin Town's land is occupied by U.S. bases, with more than 6,000 U.S. marines in the 10,000-population town. For half a century, the town has suffered from accidents that include stray bullets and the noise pollution caused by live-fire training. (end)
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2384/usforces.html
The town mayor and the town assembly chair were among participants at the rally sponsored by the Kin Town government and its assembly. The rally adopted a unanimous resolution in protest against the U.S. forces showing no intention to cancel the construction plan as well as against the Japanese government that approved the plan in disregard of the town residents' strong opposition.
A 50-year-old housewife participating in the rally said in anger, "Stray bullets from U.S. bases sometimes come into our residential areas. Why does the United States want to build a combat training facility in such a small town?"
In 1988, the U.S. forces forcibly constructed an anti-urban guerrilla training facility, but aroused strong local opposition, and the then U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle had to dismantle the facility in 1992.
However in 1995, the U.S. forces constructed a building for shooting, a facility for assault exercises, and an outdoor live fire training range without informing the local residents.
On the grounds that these facilities became too old, the U.S. forces want to have a new urban-warfare training facility.
This was brought to light in reply from a foreign ministry official to Japanese Communist Party Akamine Seiken at a House of Representative Committee meeting on March 12.
About 60 percent of Kin Town's land is occupied by U.S. bases, with more than 6,000 U.S. marines in the 10,000-population town. For half a century, the town has suffered from accidents that include stray bullets and the noise pollution caused by live-fire training. (end)
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2384/usforces.html
Unless Japan proves that they are able enough to defend themselves - instead of having to rely on Washington to provide the soldiers and firepower - then the U.S. won't dismantle their military bases there.
Plus I don't think it's entirely fair to criticise the U.S. for the soldiers stationed there when the Japanese government has obviously weighed the pros and cons of U.S. military presence and decided that it was better to keep them there rather than send them away.
If the Japanese public truly believes that their leaders can handle their own security, then by all means vote for the Party that will do what they want. Otherwise, don't bother villanising the U.S. when Japan won't even attempt to completely pry the American military away from their own soil.
I have another thought on this: since the Japanese government is still pretty much run by members of the 'old guard', is their loyalty/obligation to America based on on? It would seem that THAT particular facet of the Japanese phyche is fading quickly in the last couple generations, but could the sense of on be strong(er) in the current government?
Just wondering.
rage
Just wondering.
rage
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.