Tonight's Bari Bari Value: The US military
Eric Takabayashi
become the first tarento on the aircraft carrier USS
Kitty Hawk, and Bari Bari the first variety show ever
allowed onboard.
The panel of minor Japanese talents and celebrities ooh
and aah at those with base privileges eating 60 yen
donuts (so?), watching new movies in the theater for
220 yen, or at the "single's club" bowling, watching
cable, eating, and using the Internet for free. Some
time was taken to explain how the movie ticket is
actually 1,000 yen, but taxes paid 500 yen, with the
military paying 280 yen. [Perhaps "taxes" means
Japanese taxes, but I don't care about that.]
Then they interviewed a female sailor, and military
spouses living on base, showing the American lifestyle
(oohs, aahs and "Ookii!"as they toured the kitchen)
they enjoyed free of charge. One family of four lived
on approximately 30,000 yen a month for telephone,
cable, and IIRC, food.
The woman felt it necessary to explain it was part of
their compensation, as government employees.
Duh. It would take a Japanese audience or ignorant
people like those who whine and bitch about how "easy"
or "free" military life is, not to understand this. I
hope the show gets around to explaining how little
service personnel make relative to their civilian
counterparts (when applicable), or reminding the
audience that military personnel have given up their
personal freedom and years of their lives, if not life
itself, to have some of these privileges.
[No, the show did not explain how the US military
served the US or Japan, nor how they are risking life
and limb in the Middle East this very moment, while
they whine and bitch (or ooh and aah) about the "free"
and "easy" lives of the US service personnel.]
I am certainly not holding my breath for the show to
remind Japanese that despite all the Japanese pain
during and after the war, the US military is the single
biggest reason they are free today, or why North Korea
is listening to what they have to say.
Dave Fossett
> [No, the show did not explain how the US military
> served the US or Japan, nor how they are risking life
> and limb in the Middle East this very moment, while
> they whine and bitch (or ooh and aah) about the "free"
> and "easy" lives of the US service personnel.]
>
> I am certainly not holding my breath for the show to
> remind Japanese that despite all the Japanese pain
> during and after the war, the US military is the single
> biggest reason they are free today, or why North Korea
> is listening to what they have to say.
I saw this too, but I think you might have misunderstood the point of the
show...
It was supposed to be just a quiz about how much things cost.
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, Japan
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > [No, the show did not explain how the US military
> > served the US or Japan, nor how they are risking life
> > and limb in the Middle East this very moment, while
> > they whine and bitch (or ooh and aah) about the "free"
> > and "easy" lives of the US service personnel.]
> >
> > I am certainly not holding my breath for the show to
> > remind Japanese that despite all the Japanese pain
> > during and after the war, the US military is the single
> > biggest reason they are free today, or why North Korea
> > is listening to what they have to say.
>
> I saw this too, but I think you might have misunderstood the point of the
> show...
That there is some significance to teaching Japanese tv viewers about the US
military, and the producers chose to go the way of showing how "nice" life
was with the US military in Japan living an American style life at low cost
or free of charge, instead of focussing on who they are and what they do.
> It was supposed to be just a quiz about how much things cost.
Recall that is not what it was. They made a show out of how cheap or free
life on base was, instead of asking quiz questions about it. They also had
to guess the length of the steam catapult on the aircraft carrier while
showing us how cramped ship's quarters were, having a teen idol sit in the
Captain's chair, and telling us how remarkably young the captain was, though
he is not single but their guide was. Why not something more relevant like
asking how much the carrier cost, what or how much the crew ate in one day,
or what military salaries actually were in cash terms?
Michael Cash
<eta...@yahoo.co.jp> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Duh. It would take a Japanese audience or ignorant
>people like those who whine and bitch about how "easy"
>or "free" military life is, not to understand this. I
>hope the show gets around to explaining how little
>service personnel make relative to their civilian
>counterparts (when applicable), or reminding the
>audience that military personnel have given up their
>personal freedom and years of their lives, if not life
>itself, to have some of these privileges.
My best friend in the Navy summed it perfectly, I thought. Regarding
what time we finished work and left for home at the end of the day
(when in our homeport, of course) he said of our immediate superiors:
"They don't just tell you *when* you're going home; they tell you *if*
you're going home."
MatthewOutland
anything american is great. How's this different from usual?
Ryan Ginstrom
"Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
news:3FB0ECEC...@yahoo.co.jp...
> Another first for Japanese TV: the tarento reporters
But those military folks do get a lot of stuff that is hard to find off
base. I must admit that last year, I contributed to the corruption of a
military family, by inciting them to smuggle contraband off base to me in
the form of a frozen butterball turkey. I made some awsome homemade stuffing
to go with it, and made gravy from scratch for the mashed potatoes.
Unrepetant, I plan on doing the same this year.
Aside from the turkey, not having convenient American fixings available made
my thanksgiving & christmas dinners the best I've ever made. Kind of like
when we lived in the States: my wife used to make a lot of Japanese food
from scratch that we buy ready-made here.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Declan Murphy
> "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> news:3FB0ECEC...@yahoo.co.jp...
>
>>Another first for Japanese TV: the tarento reporters
>
> But those military folks do get a lot of stuff that is hard to find off
> base. I must admit that last year, I contributed to the corruption of a
> military family, by inciting them to smuggle contraband off base to me in
> the form of a frozen butterball turkey.
What exactly is a frozen butterball turkey?
--
Nostalgia...
Ryan Ginstrom
"Declan Murphy" <declan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB1C9E...@hotmail.com...
> Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> > "Eric Takabayashi" <eta...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
> > news:3FB0ECEC...@yahoo.co.jp...
> >
> >>Another first for Japanese TV: the tarento reporters
> >
> > But those military folks do get a lot of stuff that is hard to find off
> > base. I must admit that last year, I contributed to the corruption of a
> > military family, by inciting them to smuggle contraband off base to me
in
> > the form of a frozen butterball turkey.
>
> What exactly is a frozen butterball turkey?
http://www.butterball.com/en/index.jsp
I think the secret to how well it came out was brining it for a couple days
before roasting, then fatting it up really well by sticking butter under the
skin in strategic locations (along with herbs), and brushing the outside of
the skin with melted butter. That, and the massive amounts of fat from the
stuffing inside the bird resulted in some very tender and succulent turkey.
Didn't do any basting, either.
--
それでは、よろしくお願いいたします。
---
Ryan Ginstrom （ライアン・ジンストロム）
メール ry...@gol.com / gins...@vision1mm.com
Tel 098-958-1297
Fax 03-6644-0433
携帯 090-1987-1975
Ryan Ginstrom
"Ryan Ginstrom" <gins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boshrt$1hmcek$1...@ID-101276.news.uni-berlin.de...
That sucked large donkey penises.
Never do email and newsgroups at the same time.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Declan Murphy
> "Declan Murphy" <declan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3FB1C9E...@hotmail.com...
>>What exactly is a frozen butterball turkey?
>
> http://www.butterball.com/en/index.jsp
Thats a good way to answer a question, link to a picture. Well done.
> I think the secret to how well it came out was brining it for a couple days
> before roasting, then fatting it up really well by sticking butter under the
> skin in strategic locations (along with herbs), and brushing the outside of
> the skin with melted butter. That, and the massive amounts of fat from the
> stuffing inside the bird resulted in some very tender and succulent turkey.
I gained weight just reading that.
(thanks for the cellphone number for the beach house manager too. Always
makes it easier to rustle up a porter and valet.)
--
Nostalgia...
Jean-Marc Desperrier
> "Ryan Ginstrom" <gins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:boshrt$1hmcek$1...@ID-101276.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> That sucked large donkey penises.
>
> Never do email and newsgroups at the same time.
Or just avoid Outlook Express ?
I have one identity per account (mailserver ou newserver) on my
chat-machine.
Ryan Ginstrom
You mean like Agent?
I believe I tried them a few years ago, but gave up because they had
issues with Japanese text. If they've got that ironed out, I'd be
willing to give them another try, though...
---
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Michael Cash
<gins...@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
It's on the FAP server, and yingyong works just fine.
Ryan Ginstrom
<mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:02:48 +0900, Ryan Ginstrom
>>You mean like Agent?
>>
>>I believe I tried them a few years ago, but gave up because they had
>>issues with Japanese text. If they've got that ironed out, I'd be
>>willing to give them another try, though...
>
>It's on the FAP server, and yingyong works just fine.
Cool, how about unicode?
---
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Michael Cash
<gins...@hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:06:54 +0900, Michael Cash
I have no idea.
Darrien
"Ryan Ginstrom" <gins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lh07rvca9rhm6lnh7...@4ax.com...
Check out Dialog: http://www.40tude.com/dialog/
Ryan Ginstrom
"Darrien" <Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kPhtb.31382$be....@news.easynews.com...
Thanks, this looks very promising. Seems to me that Agent still leaves a bit
to be desired wrt character encodings & user interface.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Travers Naran
> [No, the show did not explain how the US military
> served the US or Japan, nor how they are risking life
> and limb in the Middle East this very moment, while
> they whine and bitch (or ooh and aah) about the "free"
> and "easy" lives of the US service personnel.]
Nor mentioning that those living State-side who aren't officers don't
get it quite so nice.
> I am certainly not holding my breath for the show to
> remind Japanese that despite all the Japanese pain
> during and after the war, the US military is the single
> biggest reason they are free today, or why North Korea
> is listening to what they have to say.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate: Maybe they still would have been
free without U.S. protection if they didn't have the pacifist clause in
the constitution?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > [No, the show did not explain how the US military
> > served the US or Japan, nor how they are risking life
> > and limb in the Middle East this very moment, while
> > they whine and bitch (or ooh and aah) about the "free"
> > and "easy" lives of the US service personnel.]
>
> Nor mentioning that those living State-side who aren't officers don't
> get it quite so nice.
>
> > I am certainly not holding my breath for the show to
> > remind Japanese that despite all the Japanese pain
> > during and after the war, the US military is the single
> > biggest reason they are free today, or why North Korea
> > is listening to what they have to say.
>
> I'm going to play Devil's Advocate: Maybe they still would have been
> free without U.S. protection if they didn't have the pacifist clause in
> the constitution?
No, Russia was in a position to take them after the surrender if not for the
presence of the US, and other nations would also be much more free to be more
aggressive in their naval and air space incursions. I'd like to see North
Korea attempt some missile test firings toward or over the US.
Only the collective lack of will of the Japanese people and politicians stands
in the way of Japan being a nation with its own political will, or the guts to
amend its Constitution even once, as the US has done 26 times, and other
nations have also done numerous times. But no, they fear what their much more
militarily powerful and politically influential neighbors will think regarding
any changes in Article 9, or publicly admitting they have a force capable of
military aggression.
--
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php
Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to
meet their urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future
development of economic opportunities and civil society.
Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.
Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.
High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other
supplies.
The 2-Belo
>But no, they fear what their much more
>militarily powerful and politically influential neighbors will think regarding
>any changes in Article 9, or publicly admitting they have a force capable of
>military aggression.
I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would think of Japan repealing
Article IX completely. I have a small hunch there are a great number of people
in the US government who would soundly applaud it.
Japan's own citizens, having been taught for the past 50 years that Japan's
military forces are naught much more than a glorified Peace Corps, would
probably riot in response, but there you go.
--
The 2-Belo
the2belo[AT]msd[DOT]biglobe[DOT]ne[DOT]jp
news:alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk (mhm21x20)
news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose (Meow.)
http://www.godhatesjanks.org/ (God Hates Janks!)
Processing failed. Hit any user to continue.
Eric Takabayashi
> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
> think of Japan repealing
> Article IX completely.
I have encouraged it for years. They should take
responsibility for their own country and its defense if
necessary.
> I have a small hunch there are a great number of
> people
> in the US government who would soundly applaud it.
I believe US leaders love pressuring Japan with their
security agreement or any possible changes to it.
That's lame. Japan should make the right decision to do
such as help rebuild Iraq, on their own.
> Japan's own citizens, having been taught for the past
> 50 years that Japan's
> military forces are naught much more than a glorified
> Peace Corps, would
> probably riot in response, but there you go.
Japanese will riot about the JSDF being made their
primary defense the way they rioted about its creation,
or the historic first times the JSDF went abroad,
carried live weapons abroad, were authorized to use
weapons to kill abroad, or the decision to send the
JSDF to a combat zone.
Tens of thousands may appear on the streets marching,
carrying signs and banners, and shouting slogans.
Perhaps they will sing songs and hold hands for the
media. Reporters will get a sentence or two from people
on the street.
Then after a few days or weeks the protesters will go
home to their selfish and self centered lives. The
ruling coalition may not even lose its Diet majority in
the election following such a policy shift.
I can see why Japanese generations ago simply went
along with their government's foray into Asia and the
South Pacific, even participated in any atrocities,
while claiming they did not really mean or support
them.
Eric Takabayashi
I am now watching News 23. There is some woman in the
streets of Sapporo conducting a solo petition drive
against the deployment of the SDF. It was at least minus
two and snowing. Perhaps she was wearing a mini.
My, how sensitive and devoted she is to the issue of
international peace or upholding Japan's Constitutional
ideals, the naive may think.
Uh, no, the bitch does not want her boyfriend (who wants
to marry her) to be "stolen" by deployment and possible
death in Iraq.
Hello? There is an immediately effective and easy way for
her boyfriend not to be "stolen", as well as to uphold any
alleged principles of peace or upholding Japan's
Constitution, that no one seems to have suggested to her.
He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
outright. People who don't want to get hurt or die, or
their loved ones to get hurt or die, should reconsider
such careers.
People were openly ignoring or refusing her, and only a
woman and a boy stopped to sign her petition.
So, perhaps 63% of respondents in survey (those who
bothered to respond) say the JSDF should not be deployed.
But not even one percent of people walking on the street
will bother to take 30 seconds to sign a petition given
ample opportunity, nor will even a quarter of registered
voters vote against the current ruling majority.
Awesome.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would think of Japan repealing
> Article IX completely. I have a small hunch there are a great number of people
> in the US government who would soundly applaud it.
That may be, but some of the citizens would not. Whenever I hear of
Japanese ships wandering the globe with armed Japanese soldiers on them,
I tremble a little.
KWW
Eric Takabayashi
Why?
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>
>
>>The 2-Belo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would think of Japan repealing
>>>Article IX completely. I have a small hunch there are a great number of people
>>>in the US government who would soundly applaud it.
>>
>>That may be, but some of the citizens would not. Whenever I hear of
>>Japanese ships wandering the globe with armed Japanese soldiers on them,
>>I tremble a little.
>
>
> Why?
>
Because many of the cultural traits that can make them infuriating to
deal with in peacetime are desirable traits in soldiers.
KWW
Declan Murphy
> I am now watching News 23. There is some woman in the
> streets of Sapporo conducting a solo petition drive
> against the deployment of the SDF. It was at least minus
> two and snowing. Perhaps she was wearing a mini.
From memory Sapporo's official mini-skirt and fuckme-boots season isn't
launched until early February. Perhaps she is from out of town?
> He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
> outright. People who don't want to get hurt or die, or
> their loved ones to get hurt or die, should reconsider
> such careers.
In the case of her boyfriend/husband/brother/whatever, there is a very
strong likelihood that *at the time of enlistment* it was explicitly
understood by all and sundry that service in the JSDF would not involve
deployment outside of Japan and/or its exclusion zone except for
training abroad or possibly (if he signed up within the last 10 years)
on UN blue helmet duties. Depending on the term of his current
enlistment, he may not yet have been given the opportunity to reconsider
his position now that the goal posts have been shifted.
--
"Originality usually amounts only to plagiarising something unfamiliar"
- Katharine Fullerton Gerould
Brett Robson
>
>The 2-Belo wrote:
>
>> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
>> think of Japan repealing
>> Article IX completely.
>
>I have encouraged it for years. They should take
>responsibility for their own country and its defense if
>necessary.
They can't, the reality of the Pacific still holds. Japan could effectively
(sort of) defend it's territory from attack as at the end of that war. But
consider an oil tanker travelling from Kuwait to Japan. Every tin pot country
with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to a row boat could interfere with Japans
main engergy import and what could Japan do about it? Japan would have to have a
navy rivalling the USN with an aircraft carrier on station near the Gulf, one in
the Indian Ocean and one in the Pacific, a requirement of 6 carrriers. They
wouldn't have to be as big as the US carriers, but at least big enough to cause
a serious stink, perhaps as few a 20 combat aircraft would be enough.
.
----
"You don't bang it at 11:00pm but on the other hand, you don't play tribal house
when you're headlining a tech-house party"
DJ Mike McKenna talking shit
Scott Reynolds
> Eric Takabayashi and fj.life.in-japan is a baaaaaaaaaaad combination:
>
>
>>But no, they fear what their much more
>>militarily powerful and politically influential neighbors will think regarding
>>any changes in Article 9, or publicly admitting they have a force capable of
>>military aggression.
>
> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would think of Japan repealing
> Article IX completely. I have a small hunch there are a great number of people
> in the US government who would soundly applaud it.
The US government has been pushing the Japanese to repeal Article 9 for
years. As it is, the Japanese government has been blithely ignoring it
for quite some time by changing their "interpretation" of it whenever
they find it expedient.
Remember, Article 9 does not permit Japan to have ANY armed forces,
whether defensive or otherwise, and it was understood to mean exactly
what it says when the Constitution was originally adopted. It was only
later that all of the strained "interpretations" -- a "Self-Defense
Force" is permitted, military spending is OK as long as it does not
exceed 1% of GNP, the dispatch of the SDF to support "preemptive" wars
of aggression launched by the Americans is constitutional so long as it
is preceded by lots of hand-wringing -- came along. Next thing you know
they will be saying that the Constitution allows them to launch a
preemptive strike against North Korea under certain conditions. Oh,
wait, they have already made such claims.
So Article 9 has been a dead letter for quite some time.
> Japan's own citizens, having been taught for the past 50 years that Japan's
> military forces are naught much more than a glorified Peace Corps, would
> probably riot in response, but there you go.
That I would like to see. It used to be that some Japanese cared about
such things strongly enough to take to the streets. But not now, it
would seem.
--
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > I am now watching News 23. There is some woman in the
> > streets of Sapporo conducting a solo petition drive
> > against the deployment of the SDF. It was at least minus
> > two and snowing. Perhaps she was wearing a mini.
>
> From memory Sapporo's official mini-skirt and fuckme-boots season isn't
> launched until early February. Perhaps she is from out of town?
>
> > He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
> > outright. People who don't want to get hurt or die, or
> > their loved ones to get hurt or die, should reconsider
> > such careers.
>
> In the case of her boyfriend/husband/brother/whatever, there is a very
> strong likelihood that *at the time of enlistment* it was explicitly
> understood by all and sundry that service in the JSDF would not involve
> deployment outside of Japan and/or its exclusion zone except for
> training abroad or possibly (if he signed up within the last 10 years)
> on UN blue helmet duties.
If they are that ignorant about what their training or jobs are about, then
they (JSDF) need to get real. An entire feature was done last night on
interviewing people about this future JSDF deployment. Interestingly
enough, it is reported that SDF members aren't the ones complaining.
> Depending on the term of his current
> enlistment, he may not yet have been given the opportunity to reconsider
> his position now that the goal posts have been shifted.
I feel as sorry for that man, as I feel for any other person deployed.
But he needs no "opportunity". If being safe or staying with his girlfriend
in Sapporo are so important (again note that it is his girlfriend being the
selfish bitch, there is NO mention of what the man thinks or says), he can
handle that right now.
> --
> "Originality usually amounts only to plagiarising something unfamiliar"
> - Katharine Fullerton Gerould
--
Eric Takabayashi
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:44:34 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >The 2-Belo wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
> >> think of Japan repealing
> >> Article IX completely.
> >
> >I have encouraged it for years. They should take
> >responsibility for their own country and its defense if
> >necessary.
>
> They can't, the reality of the Pacific still holds. Japan could effectively
> (sort of) defend it's territory from attack as at the end of that war. But
> consider an oil tanker travelling from Kuwait to Japan. Every tin pot country
> with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to a row boat could interfere with Japans
> main engergy import and what could Japan do about it? Japan would have to have a
> navy rivalling the USN with an aircraft carrier on station near the Gulf, one in
> the Indian Ocean and one in the Pacific, a requirement of 6 carrriers.
So do it, spending (more of) their own money and risking their own lives if
necessary, instead of leeching off the US or whining to the UN. Imagine the
employment opportunities for Japanese. Even gaijin in Japan would be able to cash
in on this.
> They
> wouldn't have to be as big as the US carriers, but at least big enough to cause
> a serious stink, perhaps as few a 20 combat aircraft would be enough.
>
> ----
> "You don't bang it at 11:00pm but on the other hand, you don't play tribal house
> when you're headlining a tech-house party"
>
> DJ Mike McKenna talking shit
--
Eric Takabayashi
Yes, which is why I say I can see why they acted as they did in their last period of
war. It is probably related to how they lived through much of their history, at
least since unification.
But do you really think they could do that again? Could they have a couple centuries
of open warfare on each other, or a half century of trying to conquer others? Not
only would they have to somehow be moved to do it, and they don't have the voice of
their god with them any more; neighboring "developing countries" like China could
now hand them their asses if they tried something funny. I wonder if Japan could
even take North Korea today.
Declan Murphy
> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
>>>outright. People who don't want to get hurt or die, or
>>>their loved ones to get hurt or die, should reconsider
>>>such careers.
>>
>>In the case of her boyfriend/husband/brother/whatever, there is a very
>>strong likelihood that *at the time of enlistment* it was explicitly
>>understood by all and sundry that service in the JSDF would not involve
>>deployment outside of Japan and/or its exclusion zone except for
>>training abroad or possibly (if he signed up within the last 10 years)
>>on UN blue helmet duties.
>
> If they are that ignorant about what their training or jobs are about, then
> they (JSDF) need to get real.
Do you actually read a post before replying to it? Do you understand
what is meant by the terms "time of enlistment" and "term of
enlistment"? We have no way of knowing what her partner's views are (I
would think that he probably wants to go), but if he did sign up at any
stage before say 2001 or so, then the terms of his enlistment as
presented to him would have been fairly different to what is now
occuring. Do you dispute that?
> Interestingly
> enough, it is reported that SDF members aren't the ones complaining.
As I said above, he probably wants to go. All of the members of my
family who have served were also keen to go (to Iraq and elsewhere).
Considering the opportunities for promotion, danger pay etc, why
wouldn't any professional soldier not want to?
>>Depending on the term of his current
>>enlistment, he may not yet have been given the opportunity to reconsider
>>his position now that the goal posts have been shifted.
>
> I feel as sorry for that man, as I feel for any other person deployed.
No need to. And as a general rule the best thing to do with your
sympathy would be to shove it far up your arse.
> But he needs no "opportunity". If being safe or staying with his girlfriend
> in Sapporo are so important (again note that it is his girlfriend being the
> selfish bitch, there is NO mention of what the man thinks or says), he can
> handle that right now.
Well there is only one way he would be able to handle it - ie leave her
and go to the middle east as ordered. I find it incredible that you
could suggest "He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
outright".
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
>
> >>>He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
> >>>outright. People who don't want to get hurt or die, or
> >>>their loved ones to get hurt or die, should reconsider
> >>>such careers.
> >>
> >>In the case of her boyfriend/husband/brother/whatever, there is a very
> >>strong likelihood that *at the time of enlistment* it was explicitly
> >>understood by all and sundry that service in the JSDF would not involve
> >>deployment outside of Japan and/or its exclusion zone except for
> >>training abroad or possibly (if he signed up within the last 10 years)
> >>on UN blue helmet duties.
> >
> > If they are that ignorant about what their training or jobs are about, then
> > they (JSDF) need to get real.
>
> Do you actually read a post before replying to it? Do you understand
> what is meant by the terms "time of enlistment" and "term of
> enlistment"?
Yeah. And even if the penalty is possible jail time or the equivalent of a
dishonorable discharge, if avoiding death in Iraq or being with his selfish
girlfriend are so important, he can choose that yesterday.
Recall the fuss that occurred when I revealed I felt sorry for people deployed
in Iraq, away from their loved ones for a year or more, in possible danger.
Why the different reaction about some Japanese?
> We have no way of knowing what her partner's views are (I
> would think that he probably wants to go), but if he did sign up at any
> stage before say 2001 or so, then the terms of his enlistment as
> presented to him would have been fairly different to what is now
> occuring. Do you dispute that?
Yes. Japanese were in the region in 91, too, also for "non combat" roles, and
have been in other "non combat" roles elsewhere in the world, sometimes carrying
actual weapons. SDF members know damned well what could occur, ie, actual
fighting and dying. Those Hokkaido people planned to be sent were allegedly
meant to defend against the Soviet Union. Ha ha.
> > Interestingly
> > enough, it is reported that SDF members aren't the ones complaining.
>
> As I said above, he probably wants to go. All of the members of my
> family who have served were also keen to go (to Iraq and elsewhere).
> Considering the opportunities for promotion, danger pay etc, why
> wouldn't any professional soldier not want to?
Because they may not want the possibility of dying or being separated from their
families.
Are you now claiming that JSDF personnel are "professional soldiers"?
> >>Depending on the term of his current
> >>enlistment, he may not yet have been given the opportunity to reconsider
> >>his position now that the goal posts have been shifted.
> >
> > I feel as sorry for that man, as I feel for any other person deployed.
>
> No need to.
Why, when you are the one playing devil's advocate bringing up the possibility
the man did not know what he was getting into at the time of his enlistment?
> And as a general rule the best thing to do with your
> sympathy would be to shove it far up your arse.
All right. Fuck him. I hope he gets to be the one to make the news and Japanese
history. And Japan will forget him as quickly as they forgot the other two dead
Japanese.
> > But he needs no "opportunity". If being safe or staying with his girlfriend
> > in Sapporo are so important (again note that it is his girlfriend being the
> > selfish bitch, there is NO mention of what the man thinks or says), he can
> > handle that right now.
>
> Well there is only one way he would be able to handle it - ie leave her
> and go to the middle east as ordered. I find it incredible that you
> could suggest "He can refuse, or quit. Or disobey any order to deploy
> outright".
Why, if he is any whining bitch like his girlfriend, or the reporters or
producers who put her on?
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:44:34 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
>> >
>> >The 2-Belo wrote:
>> >
>> >> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
>> >> think of Japan repealing
>> >> Article IX completely.
>> >
>> >I have encouraged it for years. They should take
>> >responsibility for their own country and its defense if
>> >necessary.
>>
>> They can't, the reality of the Pacific still holds. Japan could effectively
>> (sort of) defend it's territory from attack as at the end of that war. But
>> consider an oil tanker travelling from Kuwait to Japan. Every tin pot country
>> with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to a row boat could interfere with Japans
>>main engergy import and what could Japan do about it? Japan would have to have a
>>navy rivalling the USN with an aircraft carrier on station near the Gulf, one in
>> the Indian Ocean and one in the Pacific, a requirement of 6 carrriers.
>
>So do it, spending (more of) their own money and risking their own lives if
>necessary, instead of leeching off the US or whining to the UN. Imagine the
>employment opportunities for Japanese. Even gaijin in Japan would be able to
>cash
>in on this.
>
First of all that would be illegal under the constitution an aircraft carrier is
an offensive weapon platform. Of course that can be changed. But imagine the
international outcry as Japan lays the keel of it's first carrier.
Eric Takabayashi
And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival the US
Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
As has been pointed out here tonight and numerous times elsewhere, the reality of the
situation is Japan has been in violation of Article 9 since the beginning of the SDF.
> Of course that can be changed.
Like 70 percent of Japanese in survey agree Article 9 should be changed, and how the
ruling coalition is now openly able to talk about doing.
> But imagine the international outcry as Japan lays the keel of it's first carrier.
Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to call
them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive. As not offensive as having one of
the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest military
budgets.
Yes, just listen to the Chinese and Koreans protest as Japan has decided to send an
armed force abroad.
Yet again.
Just tonight, one of the reasons cited for South Koreans being willing to go along
with their own government deciding to send what will be the third largest contingent
(after the US and UK) to Iraq, was them watching how pacifistic Japan was willing to
send its own forces to the region. South Korea may have complained or thought it was
regrettable when Japan first made the decision to send the SDF to Iraq, but now it is
precisely one reason they are willing to risk more of their own citizens' lives. Of
course the primary reason cited was them thinking going along with what they thought
the US wanted would help South Korea get what they wanted with North Korea.
Sad. You'd think they'd agree to send their soldiers abroad to help rebuild Iraq, or
be part of the international community. But no, it's just another way of having their
hand out.
Brett Robson
Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.
>Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to
>call
>them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive.
What is the range of a helicopter? What offensive weapons do naval helicopters
have? Torpedeos. Naval helicopters have 3 roles, anti sub, recon, and search and
rescue.
> As not offensive as having one of
>the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest
>military
>budgets.
Which for instance has no landing craft. This Army ain't going nowhere. The
airforce has no refuelling aircraft - they would struggle to lob anything bigger
than grenades at Nth Korea.
Eric Takabayashi
> >And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival
> >the US
> >Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
>
> Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
> ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.
So why is either selling one's soul to the US or having a force that can "rival" the
US Navy to protect the energy supply going through "notoriously dangerous" waters the
only ways you envision? Among other things, Japan could buy oil from Russia or
Argentina like the US did. They could also look for other sources of energy, use
less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported nuclear fuel
or MOX.
> >Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to
> >call them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive.
>
> What is the range of a helicopter? What offensive weapons do naval helicopters
> have? Torpedeos. Naval helicopters have 3 roles, anti sub, recon, and search and
> rescue.
Helicopters can reach foreign territory or foreign ships while carrying arms from a
"destroyer", but that is irrelevant, as are Koizumi's increasing excuses over why the
Iraq decision among other SJDF actions, are not a violation of Article 9. What makes
them "naval" helicopters only, with torpedoes only, or such "non offensive" roles
only? Because they are flown from a "destroyer" based at sea?
> > As not offensive as having one of
> > the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest
> > military budgets.
>
> Which for instance has no landing craft.
Japanese ships are landing craft.
> This Army ain't going nowhere.
The same nowhere that includes the Middle East halfway around the world, where Japan
has sent Japanese personnel or evacuated Japanese citizens from before by air and
sea, using SDF and commercial transport?
> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
Easily remedied.
> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been. Japanese do
not see the irony of criticizing North Korea's missile or rocket programs while
trying to improve their own.
Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>>>And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival
>> >the US
>> >Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
>>
>>Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
>>ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.
>
>So why is either selling one's soul to the US or having a force that can "rival"
>the
>US Navy to protect the energy supply going through "notoriously dangerous"
>waters the
>only ways you envision? Among other things, Japan could buy oil from Russia
How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?
>Argentina like the US did.
Check that one. Right continent, wrong country. That country that starts with C,
is on the other side of the Pananma Canal and Pacific so they would be at the
mercy of the Panama Hat Company. Also they only have light oil suitable for
gasoline, and the US has got it all.
> They could also look for other sources of energy, use
>less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported nuclear
>fuel
>or MOX.
Which is what they have been doing.
>>>Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to
>> >call them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive.
>>
>>What is the range of a helicopter? What offensive weapons do naval helicopters
>>have? Torpedeos. Naval helicopters have 3 roles, anti sub, recon, and search and
>> rescue.
>
>Helicopters can reach foreign territory or foreign ships while carrying arms
>from a
>"destroyer", but that is irrelevant,
specifically what arms? A Sea Hawk has a range of 600km and flies at a very
unimpressive 180 knots and is armed with a single 7.62mm machine gun and
torpedos. Not a very scary weapons platform.
> as are Koizumi's increasing excuses over why the
>Iraq decision among other SJDF actions, are not a violation of Article 9. What
>makes
>them "naval" helicopters only, with torpedoes only, or such "non offensive"
>roles
>only? Because they are flown from a "destroyer" based at sea?
Because they are anti submarine. Anti submarine is a defensive operation.
>> > As not offensive as having one of
>> > the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest
>> > military budgets.
>>
>> Which for instance has no landing craft.
>
>Japanese ships are landing craft.
You are making up stuff. Japan has no landing craft.
this is a landing craft
http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/brunei/gallery/gallery1.htm
>
>> This Army ain't going nowhere.
>
>The same nowhere that includes the Middle East halfway around the world, where
>Japan
>has sent Japanese personnel or evacuated Japanese citizens from before by air
>and
>sea, using SDF and commercial transport?
>
so what? A 747 full of SDF personnel is not a scary propostion.
>> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
>
>Easily remedied.
yes of course, and Australia could build nuclear weapons. It easy when you make
up stuff up.
>
>> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
>
>Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been.
You mean the H2A Anti Submarine Rocket? Very expensive and not very accurate.
> Japanese do
>not see the irony of criticizing North Korea's missile or rocket programs while
>trying to improve their own.
>
I don't think it would be possible to hit Korea with an H2A, not even the ones
that go straight up.
>Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?
Yes, with 500kg bombs dropped from a F15 or F4; the 5inch (?) gun on their
destroyers; or a helicopter got strafe Nth Korea with it 7.62mm gun. All of
which would get the shit blown out of them.
.
.
----
someone who wants junk mail
in...@jpat.jp
Eric Takabayashi
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:02:44 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >
> >>>And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival
> >> >the US
> >> >Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
> >>
> >>Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
> >>ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.
> >
> >So why is either selling one's soul to the US or having a force that can "rival"
> >the
> >US Navy to protect the energy supply going through "notoriously dangerous"
> >waters the
> >only ways you envision? Among other things, Japan could buy oil from Russia
>
> How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?
Tankers, which aren't being sunk by hostile forces.
> >Argentina like the US did.
>
> Check that one. Right continent, wrong country. That country that starts with C,
> is on the other side of the Pananma Canal and Pacific so they would be at the
> mercy of the Panama Hat Company. Also they only have light oil suitable for
> gasoline, and the US has got it all.
>
> > They could also look for other sources of energy, use
> >less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported nuclear
> >fuel
> >or MOX.
>
> Which is what they have been doing.
And which is something they could keep doing if not reliant on the US.
> >>>Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to
> >> >call them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive.
> >>
> >>What is the range of a helicopter? What offensive weapons do naval helicopters
> >>have? Torpedeos. Naval helicopters have 3 roles, anti sub, recon, and search and
> >> rescue.
> >
> >Helicopters can reach foreign territory or foreign ships while carrying arms
> >from a
> >"destroyer", but that is irrelevant,
>
> specifically what arms? A Sea Hawk has a range of 600km and flies at a very
> unimpressive 180 knots and is armed with a single 7.62mm machine gun and
> torpedos. Not a very scary weapons platform.
So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
offensive.
> > as are Koizumi's increasing excuses over why the
> >Iraq decision among other SJDF actions, are not a violation of Article 9. What
> >makes
> >them "naval" helicopters only, with torpedoes only, or such "non offensive"
> >roles
> >only? Because they are flown from a "destroyer" based at sea?
>
> Because they are anti submarine. Anti submarine is a defensive operation.
So use army helicopters.
> >> > As not offensive as having one of
> >> > the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest
> >> > military budgets.
> >>
> >> Which for instance has no landing craft.
> >
> >Japanese ships are landing craft.
>
> You are making up stuff. Japan has no landing craft.
> this is a landing craft
> http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/brunei/gallery/gallery1.htm
I know.
Why do you limit movement of personnel, transport and arms to such ships? Japan has
done without for years, and will continue to do so as when they send personnel and
arms to the Middle East yet again.
> >> This Army ain't going nowhere.
> >
> >The same nowhere that includes the Middle East halfway around the world, where
> >Japan
> >has sent Japanese personnel or evacuated Japanese citizens from before by air
> >and
> >sea, using SDF and commercial transport?
>
> so what? A 747 full of SDF personnel is not a scary propostion.
Someone like you could say the same of many of the world's national armed forces, or
about North Korea firing Silkworm missiles into the sea. At least other countries
admit they have a military.
So try JAL's fleet, and Japan's commercial shipping fleet, full of SDF personnel and
equipment.
We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are, because
they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the JSDF
and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
> >> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
> >
> >Easily remedied.
>
> yes of course, and Australia could build nuclear weapons. It easy when you make
> up stuff up.
You mean, Australia can't? Japan can.
Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is "making
stuff up".
> >> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
> >
> >Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been.
>
> You mean the H2A Anti Submarine Rocket? Very expensive and not very accurate.
You can say the same of American missile defense system development, among other
things.
And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese wring
their hands?
> > Japanese do
> >not see the irony of criticizing North Korea's missile or rocket programs while
> >trying to improve their own.
>
> I don't think it would be possible to hit Korea with an H2A, not even the ones
> that go straight up.
Why not? And why limit any of Japan's offensive capabilities to Korea?
> >Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?
>
> Yes, with 500kg bombs dropped from a F15 or F4; the 5inch (?) gun on their
> destroyers; or a helicopter got strafe Nth Korea with it 7.62mm gun. All of
> which would get the shit blown out of them.
But are they offensive?
--
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php
Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet their
urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future development of
economic opportunities and civil society.
Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.
Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.
High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other supplies.
---
Man Chops Off Testicle in Dispute with Wife
Mon Dec 22, 2003; 9:59 AM ET
NAIROBI (Reuters) - A Kenyan man chopped off one of his testicles in a row with his
wife and then walked naked to a police station to report the incident, police said on
Monday.
Eric Takabayashi
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:02:44 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >
> >>>And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival
> >> >the US
> >> >Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
> >>
> >>Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
> >>ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.
> >
> >So why is either selling one's soul to the US or having a force that can "rival"
> >the
> >US Navy to protect the energy supply going through "notoriously dangerous"
> >waters the
> >only ways you envision? Among other things, Japan could buy oil from Russia
>
> How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?
>
> >Argentina like the US did.
>
> Check that one. Right continent, wrong country. That country that starts with C,
> is on the other side of the Pananma Canal and Pacific so they would be at the
> mercy of the Panama Hat Company. Also they only have light oil suitable for
> gasoline, and the US has got it all.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm
Imports of Crude Oil into the United States
by Country of Origin, 2002
Rank Country of Origin Thousand Barrels
1 Saudi Arabia 1,519
2 Mexico 1,500
3 Canada 1,445
4 Venezuela 1,201
5 Nigeria 589
6 Iraq 459
7 United Kingdom 405
8 Norway 348
9 Angola 321
10 Colombia 235
You're right, I was thinking of Venezuela. But Argentina is also way down on the
list.
Well, look at how important Mexico, Canada and Venezuela are to the US, relative to
everyone else below them on the list. Japan could buy from such countries as well.
--
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php
Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet their
urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future development of
economic opportunities and civil society.
Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.
Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.
High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other supplies.
---
Man Chops Off Testicle in Dispute with Wife
Mon Dec 22, 2003; 9:59 AM ET
NAIROBI (Reuters) - A Kenyan man chopped off one of his testicles in a row with his
wife and then walked naked to a police station to report the incident, police said on
Monday.
--
"I want to meet my father and say, your sperm became me."
--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far
the best in the world
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>>
>> How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?
>
>Tankers, which aren't being sunk by hostile forces.
Have a look at a map and get back to me. When they expoilt oil in the east
Japan has the option to buy it.
>> > They could also look for other sources of energy, use
>>>less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported
>>nuclear
>> >fuel
>> >or MOX.
>>
>> Which is what they have been doing.
>
>And which is something they could keep doing if not reliant on the US.
>
You are saying "try harder", unfortunately the answer is not that simple. Why
does Japan have so much nuclear and hydro power?
>
>So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
>offensive.
...
>So use army helicopters.
Army helicopter have less range and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
>
>Why do you limit movement of personnel, transport and arms to such ships? Japan
>has
>done without for years, and will continue to do so as when they send personnel
>and
>arms to the Middle East yet again.
>
There are unable to invade. That is the whole idea of article 9. Whether or not
you agree with the Iraq deployment Japan is not capable of invading anything.
The only thing they are capable of is minor inderdiction.
>Someone like you could say the same of many of the world's national armed
>forces, or
>about North Korea firing Silkworm missiles into the sea. At least other
>countries
>admit they have a military.
Let me speak for myself thank you.
>
>So try JAL's fleet, and Japan's commercial shipping fleet, full of SDF personnel
>and
>equipment.
And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
of Japan's territorial waters.
Where do they land?
"Hey look at all these orange ships, Japan must be donating lots of Toyotas."
"Surprise! Hands up it's the 3rd Armoured Divison."
>
>We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are,
>because
>they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the
>JSDF
>and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
Neither are the Michigan Militia. Given enough of your hypothetical situations
and resources they could invade anywhere.
>> >> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
>> >
>> >Easily remedied.
>>
>>yes of course, and Australia could build nuclear weapons. It easy when you make
>> up stuff up.
>
>You mean, Australia can't? Japan can.
Of course we could. The point is you are just making up stupid scenarios.
Australia could build nuclear weapons therefor so we are a nuclear power.
>
>Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is
>"making
>stuff up".
No, that is the first time you've mentioned it. You started off saying Japan
should not tow the US line and I pointed out practical reasons why they can't or
shouldn't. Obtaining offensive weapons is very different to peace keeping in
East Timor.
>
>> >> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
>> >
>> >Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been.
>>
>> You mean the H2A Anti Submarine Rocket? Very expensive and not very accurate.
>
>You can say the same of American missile defense system development, among other
>things.
>
>And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese
>wring
>their hands?
>
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>I don't think it would be possible to hit Korea with an H2A, not even the ones
>> that go straight up.
>
>Why not?
It would be like using a 747 to fly from Shinjuku to Shibuya.
>And why limit any of Japan's offensive capabilities to Korea?
>
Well of course they could hit Argentina for selling their oil to the US but I
don't think they would. While I wouldn't want an H2A crashing on my house they
would really have to build a warhead first. The H2A is not a weapon, and it is
so unreliable that it is not even a potential weapon.
>> >Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?
>>
>> Yes, with 500kg bombs dropped from a F15 or F4; the 5inch (?) gun on their
>> destroyers; or a helicopter got strafe Nth Korea with it 7.62mm gun. All of
>> which would get the shit blown out of them.
>
>But are they offensive?
>
Obviously in your mind they are. In your mind any weapopn can kill therefore is
an offensive weapon. Two sea scouts with a big dog would be an offensive weapon.
Should they be armed with nerf bats?
Eric Takabayashi
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:11:37 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >>
> >> How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?
> >
> >Tankers, which aren't being sunk by hostile forces.
>
> Have a look at a map and get back to me. When they expoilt oil in the east
> Japan has the option to buy it.
>
> >> > They could also look for other sources of energy, use
> >>>less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported
> >>nuclear
> >> >fuel
> >> >or MOX.
> >>
> >> Which is what they have been doing.
> >
> >And which is something they could keep doing if not reliant on the US.
>
> You are saying "try harder", unfortunately the answer is not that simple.
The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do not.
> Why does Japan have so much nuclear
Because they don't know when to give up. Other nations have learned years or decades
earlier.
> and hydro power?
Money for construction firms and political connections.
> >So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
> >offensive.
> ...
>
> >So use army helicopters.
>
> Army helicopter have less range
That's what carriers are for. Are you claiming that a "crappy" Cobra is not
offensive?
> and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
> very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
> http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
The issue is not effective, crappy, or scary. The issue is:
第２章 戦争の放棄
第９条【戦争の放棄，軍備及び交戦権の否認】
（１）日本国民は，正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し，国権の発動たる戦争
と，武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は，国際紛争を解決する手段としては，永久にこれを放棄
する。
（２）前項の目的を達するため，陸海空軍その他の戦力は，これを保持しない。国の交戦権
は，これを認めない。
CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the
Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the
threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to
accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as
other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the
state will not be recognized.
Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
> >Why do you limit movement of personnel, transport and arms to such ships? Japan
> >has done without for years, and will continue to do so as when they send
> personnel
> >and arms to the Middle East yet again.
>
> There are unable to invade. That is the whole idea of article 9. Whether or not
> you agree with the Iraq deployment Japan is not capable of invading anything.
> The only thing they are capable of is minor inderdiction.
Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the Maldives.
You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.
> >Someone like you could say the same of many of the world's national armed
> >forces, or
> >about North Korea firing Silkworm missiles into the sea. At least other
> >countries
> >admit they have a military.
>
> Let me speak for myself thank you.
So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces and
see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
> >So try JAL's fleet, and Japan's commercial shipping fleet, full of SDF personnel
> >and
> >equipment.
>
> And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
> of Japan's territorial waters.
How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory before
without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese, or even
hostiles in the Middle East.
> Where do they land?
First they secure the ground, like the US did before using Bagdad Airport.
But irrelevant.
> "Hey look at all these orange ships, Japan must be donating lots of Toyotas."
> "Surprise! Hands up it's the 3rd Armoured Divison."
>
> >We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are,
> >because
> >they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the
> >JSDF
> >and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
>
> Neither are the Michigan Militia. Given enough of your hypothetical situations
> and resources they could invade anywhere.
Read Article 9 again. Successful invasion or actually conquering a country are
irrelevant to the issue.
> >> >> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
> >> >
> >> >Easily remedied.
> >>
> >>yes of course, and Australia could build nuclear weapons. It easy when you make
> >> up stuff up.
> >
> >You mean, Australia can't? Japan can.
>
> Of course we could.
Is Australia a country like Japan where the government admits numerous times when
new reports come out of places like Tokaimura, that it cannot account for hundreds
of kilograms of nuclear material each time, claiming for example, that it must be
clinging to pipes? Even more shocking than the fact the Japanese governments admits
to "losing" hundreds of kilograms of nuclear material at a time, when it is claimed
regarding North Korea that 5 or 6 kg are all that are required for an atom bomb, or
that the Japanese media will openly report such (in English at least), is the fact
the international community such as the UN or the US, take no interest in finding
out what is happening to all that material, while putting so much pressure on
communist or muslim nations simply suspected of having the potential to develop
arms.
> The point is you are just making up stupid scenarios.
The point is Article 9 is created to prevent any scenarios of war or use of force.
> Australia could build nuclear weapons therefor so we are a nuclear power.
No it isn't. However, Japan is a potential nuclear power.
> >Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is
> >"making stuff up".
>
> No, that is the first time you've mentioned it.
So? Japanese politicians claiming Japan is not in violation of their own
Constitution are making stuff up.
> You started off saying Japan
> should not tow the US line and I pointed out practical reasons why they can't or
> shouldn't.
Like bringing up Article 9 when it is practically a dead issue, and even 70% of
Japanese in survey believe the Constitution should be revised.
> Obtaining offensive weapons is very different to peace keeping in
> East Timor.
Irrelevant to the issue of Article 9, and Japan has the ability to wage war. They
don't need to win or conquer anyone to do it.
> >> >> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
> >> >
> >> >Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been.
> >>
> >> You mean the H2A Anti Submarine Rocket? Very expensive and not very accurate.
> >
> >You can say the same of American missile defense system development, among other
> >things.
> >
> >And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese
> >wring
> >their hands?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Expense and accuracy are irrelevant. Rockets are missiles. Even airliners are
missiles.
> >>I don't think it would be possible to hit Korea with an H2A, not even the ones
> >> that go straight up.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> It would be like using a 747 to fly from Shinjuku to Shibuya.
>
> >And why limit any of Japan's offensive capabilities to Korea?
>
> Well of course they could hit Argentina for selling their oil to the US but I
> don't think they would.
What Japan would do is irrelevant, as they are never supposed to be able to do any
such thing. Read Article 9.
> While I wouldn't want an H2A crashing on my house they
> would really have to build a warhead first. The H2A is not a weapon, and it is
> so unreliable that it is not even a potential weapon.
What do you think of North Korean missiles, or their space program, and how is that
any consolation to the Japanese or US governments, or panicky Japanese? If North
Korea can hit Fukuyama, they are welcome to do it, and I'd like to see a North
Korean missile with the range to strike the US.
> >> >Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?
> >>
> >> Yes, with 500kg bombs dropped from a F15 or F4; the 5inch (?) gun on their
> >> destroyers; or a helicopter got strafe Nth Korea with it 7.62mm gun. All of
> >> which would get the shit blown out of them.
> >
> >But are they offensive?
>
> Obviously in your mind they are.
Why is an F-15 with 500 kg bombs not an offensive weapon, or lobbing grenades at
Korea not offensive? Were F-15s or grenades not offensive in Iraq, either? I'm sure
Japan would think differently if F-15s came from Asia or Asian neighbors attacked
Japan with small explosives.
> In your mind any weapopn can kill therefore is an offensive weapon.
No. But read Article 9.
> Two sea scouts with a big dog would be an offensive weapon.
Nope.
> Should they be armed with nerf bats?
--
Brett Robson
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:15:43 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
>
>The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do not.
Just like the rest of the world doesn't.
>
>> Why does Japan have so much nuclear
>
>Because they don't know when to give up. Other nations have learned years or
>decades
>earlier.
And so they burn more fossil fuels. Carefull Eric you are going around in
cirlces.
>
>> and hydro power?
>
>Money for construction firms and political connections.
>
So your alledged motivate invalidates the benefits of hydro power. You have out
done yourself.
>>>So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
>> >offensive.
>> ...
>>
>> >So use army helicopters.
>>
>> Army helicopter have less range
>
>That's what carriers are for. Are you claiming that a "crappy" Cobra is not
>offensive?
They don't have carriers. Cobras are only effective when put in favourable
tactical situation, which that Japan is entirely unable to provide outside of
Japanese terrority. For instance an ancient Nth Korean Mig 19 would tear a Cobra
into little peices of metal. To use attack helicopters offensively an entire
division (15,000+) would have to be in place.
>
>> and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
>> very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
>> http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
>
>The issue is not effective, crappy, or scary.
No, you are wrong. To classify weapons as offensive or defensive the
effectiveness of that weapon in various circumstances is the issue. An anti tank
gun is a defensive weapon as you can't carry one up to a tank, set it up, bed it
in, then fire at the tank. A tank would be an offensive weapon, however Japan
has no ability to put them into an offensive situation.
>
>第２章 戦争の放棄
>
>第９条【戦争の放棄，軍備及び交戦権の否認】
>
>
>（１）日本国民は，正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠��造亡�瓩掘す餮△糧�阿燭訐鐐�(B
>と，武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は，国際紛争を解決する��蠱覆箸靴討蓮け糞廚砲海譴鯤鉸�(B
>する。
>
>（２）前項の目的を達するため，陸瘢雹海空軍その他の戦力は，これを保持しない。国の交戦権
>は，これを認めない。
>
Do you think that means Japan cannot defend itself from, for example an
amphibious invasion of Honshu? If so you would probably be the only one. Section
1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international disputes"; an
invasion does not cover either case.
>Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.
The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
threatened.
In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
which given the context I think is accurate.
>
>Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the
>Maldives.
>You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.
"Not going anywhere" in the context of a paragraph regarding invasion. I am not
sure how they would get to the Maldives using JSDF equipment, maybe they could
put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.
>
>So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces
>and
>see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
>
Why? Japan does not threaten any of them.
>>>So try JAL's fleet, and Japan's commercial shipping fleet, full of SDF
>>personnel
>> >and
>> >equipment.
>>
>>And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
>> of Japan's territorial waters.
>
>How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory
>before
>without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese,
When they had offensive forces.
> or even
>hostiles in the Middle East.
>
"hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.
>> Where do they land?
>
>First they secure the ground, like the US did before using Bagdad Airport.
>
>But irrelevant.
>
No it is relevant as it shows your ignorance. You secure the ground before you
even go there? How? "Excuse me but we are planning to invade you, would you mind
clearing an area so we can land our C-130s?" That would have made the Iraqi war
much easier if the US had tried that.
>> "Hey look at all these orange ships, Japan must be donating lots of Toyotas."
>> "Surprise! Hands up it's the 3rd Armoured Divison."
>>
>> >We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are,
>> >because
>>>they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the
>> >JSDF
>> >and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
>>
>>Neither are the Michigan Militia. Given enough of your hypothetical situations
>> and resources they could invade anywhere.
>
>Read Article 9 again. Successful invasion or actually conquering a country are
>irrelevant to the issue.
>
On the contrary, an unsusccesful action wouldn't really "settl[e] international
disputes"
One soap box at a time please.
>
>> The point is you are just making up stupid scenarios.
>
>The point is Article 9 is created to prevent any scenarios of war or use of
>force.
>
>> Australia could build nuclear weapons therefor so we are a nuclear power.
>
>No it isn't. However, Japan is a potential nuclear power.
>
Australia has everything it needs, and unlike Japan has a weapon system capable
of delivering them.
>> >Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is
>> >"making stuff up".
>>
>> No, that is the first time you've mentioned it.
>
>So? Japanese politicians claiming Japan is not in violation of their own
>Constitution are making stuff up.
>
I have just realised you lead me into an Article 9 argument.
Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>> You started off saying Japan
>>should not tow the US line and I pointed out practical reasons why they can't or
>> shouldn't.
>
>Like bringing up Article 9 when it is practically a dead issue, and even 70% of
>Japanese in survey believe the Constitution should be revised.
>
Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>> Obtaining offensive weapons is very different to peace keeping in
>> East Timor.
>
>Irrelevant to the issue of Article 9, and Japan has the ability to wage war.
>They
>don't need to win or conquer anyone to do it.
>
Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>> >
>>>And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese
>> >wring
>> >their hands?
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>Expense and accuracy are irrelevant. Rockets are missiles. Even airliners are
>missiles.
>
You are insane. Rocks are potential weapons too.
Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>> Well of course they could hit Argentina for selling their oil to the US but I
>> don't think they would.
>
>What Japan would do is irrelevant, as they are never supposed to be able to do
>any
>such thing. Read Article 9.
They could crash an oil tanker a Chinese ship. No point in asking, you think
that is war potential don't you?
BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
>> While I wouldn't want an H2A crashing on my house they
>>would really have to build a warhead first. The H2A is not a weapon, and it is
>> so unreliable that it is not even a potential weapon.
>
>What do you think of North Korean missiles, or their space program, and how is
>that
>any consolation to the Japanese or US governments, or panicky Japanese? If North
>Korea can hit Fukuyama, they are welcome to do it, and I'd like to see a North
>Korean missile with the range to strike the US.
Why even quote if you aren't addressing what I said. Are you talking to me or
the voices in your head? Did you take your medication today?
BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
>Why is an F-15 with 500 kg bombs not an offensive weapon, or lobbing grenades at
>Korea not offensive?
I have already addressed this. It is a matter of effectiveness. Because Japan
does not have refuelling craft an F-15 would barely be able to reach Nth Korea
and then would have minimal payload.
> Were F-15s or grenades not offensive in Iraq, either?
They were part of system that Japan is unable to replicate.
BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
> I'm sure
>Japan would think differently if F-15s came from Asia or Asian neighbors
>attacked
>Japan with small explosives.
They would certainly be very surprised.
>
>> In your mind any weapopn can kill therefore is an offensive weapon.
>
>No. But read Article 9.
>
Careful Eric a moment ago you were saying that airliners were weapons.
>
>> Should they be armed with nerf bats?
>
apparently
.
Eric Takabayashi
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:15:43 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do not.
>
> Just like the rest of the world doesn't.
The rest of the world does not take responsibility for their own national defense?
> >> Why does Japan have so much nuclear
> >
> >Because they don't know when to give up. Other nations have learned years or
> >decades earlier.
>
> And so they burn more fossil fuels. Carefull Eric you are going around in
> cirlces.
No, they do not have to use more fossil fuels. They just chose that life.
> >> and hydro power?
> >
> >Money for construction firms and political connections.
>
> So your alledged motivate invalidates the benefits of hydro power. You have out
> done yourself.
You may have noticed the recent trend against more dam construction. There is not a lot more which can be done anyway.
> >>>So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
> >> >offensive.
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >So use army helicopters.
> >>
> >> Army helicopter have less range
> >
> >That's what carriers are for. Are you claiming that a "crappy" Cobra is not
> >offensive?
>
> They don't have carriers.
You may have noticed they decided to build one or two.
> Cobras are only effective when put in favourable
> tactical situation, which that Japan is entirely unable to provide outside of
> Japanese terrority. For instance an ancient Nth Korean Mig 19 would tear a Cobra
> into little peices of metal.
That's where more modern fighters are useful.
> To use attack helicopters offensively an entire
> division (15,000+) would have to be in place.
>
> >> and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
> >> very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
> >> http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
> >
> >The issue is not effective, crappy, or scary.
>
> No, you are wrong. To classify weapons as offensive or defensive the
> effectiveness of that weapon in various circumstances is the issue. An anti tank
> gun is a defensive weapon as you can't carry one up to a tank, set it up, bed it
> in, then fire at the tank. A tank would be an offensive weapon, however Japan
> has no ability to put them into an offensive situation.
Put a tank on a ship.
> >第２章 戦争の放棄
> >
> >第９条【戦争の放棄，軍備及び交戦権の否認】
> >
> >
> >（１）日本国民は，正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠��造亡�瓩掘す餮△糧�阿燭訐鐐�(B
> >と，武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は，国際紛争を解決する��蠱覆箸靴討蓮け糞廚砲海譴鯤鉸�(B
> >する。
> >
> >（２）前項の目的を達するため，陸瘢雹海空軍その他の戦力は，これを保持しない。国の交戦権
> >は，これを認めない。
>
> Do you think that means Japan cannot defend itself from, for example an
> amphibious invasion of Honshu?
That's what it meant before they created the SDF to public protest.
> If so you would probably be the only one.
No I wouldn't. A report Monday night revealed only 15% of Japanese would defend Japan in a war. But I don't believe Japan
should not defend itself, anyway. Japan should have their own military, considerably more powerful than the JSDF, and not
be dependent on the US.
> Section 1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international disputes"; an
> invasion does not cover either case.
An invasion is not an international dispute?
> >Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
>
> I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.
It's in senryoku.
> The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
> threatened.
Perhaps you would like to convince the Koreans and Chinese, or distrustful Middle Easterners. The Maritime SDF, for
example, could stop using the Rising Sun banner.
> In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
> which given the context I think is accurate.
My Ex word calls it "military power".
> >Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the
> >Maldives.
> >You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.
>
> "Not going anywhere" in the context of a paragraph regarding invasion. I am not
> sure how they would get to the Maldives using JSDF equipment,
They aren't limited to SDF equipment. They could go on a cruise ship.
> maybe they could put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.
People can slip into Maldives unnoticed, and they have noticed that weakness themselves. Maldives also lacks what they
call an army.
> >So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces
> >and
> >see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
>
> Why? Japan does not threaten any of them.
I just asked for how they compare, because you seem to take such offense at claiming Japan has a modern and expensive
force, not whether Japan would fight lesser military powers of the world or not. Would asking you to compare the
Australian military to that of Eastern Europe also be so absurd?
> >>And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
> >> of Japan's territorial waters.
> >
> >How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory
> >before
> >without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese,
>
> When they had offensive forces.
So you see only war when Japan has "offensive forces"?
> > or even hostiles in the Middle East.
>
> "hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.
No, "hostiles". It is you claiming even a machine gun on a rowboat would threaten Japanese ships or cargo. But they don't
do it, nor have they been motivated to do such things before they noticed more recently how supportive Japan is of the US
or US policy.
> >> Where do they land?
> >
> >First they secure the ground, like the US did before using Bagdad Airport.
> >
> >But irrelevant.
>
> No it is relevant as it shows your ignorance. You secure the ground before you
> even go there? How?
Take an unguarded and/or largely unpopulated area. Even civilians can go to the disputed islands under their own power.
> "Excuse me but we are planning to invade you, would you mind
> clearing an area so we can land our C-130s?" That would have made the Iraqi war
> much easier if the US had tried that.
The US can invade much weaker countries or territories which would not put up such a fight. Like the Maldives.
> >> "Hey look at all these orange ships, Japan must be donating lots of Toyotas."
> >> "Surprise! Hands up it's the 3rd Armoured Divison."
> >>
> >> >We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are,
> >> >because
> >>>they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the
> >> >JSDF
> >> >and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
> >>
> >>Neither are the Michigan Militia. Given enough of your hypothetical situations
> >> and resources they could invade anywhere.
> >
> >Read Article 9 again. Successful invasion or actually conquering a country are
> >irrelevant to the issue.
>
> On the contrary, an unsusccesful action wouldn't really "settl[e] international
> disputes"
Not to the satisfaction of the Japanese, perhaps.
A simple yes or no would do regarding Australia.
> >> The point is you are just making up stupid scenarios.
> >
> >The point is Article 9 is created to prevent any scenarios of war or use of
> >force.
> >
> >> Australia could build nuclear weapons therefor so we are a nuclear power.
> >
> >No it isn't. However, Japan is a potential nuclear power.
>
> Australia has everything it needs,
Then why do you not consider them a potential nuclear power?
> and unlike Japan has a weapon system capable
> of delivering them.
When did rockets stop being missiles? When did nukes stop being transportable by ship or other methods? Most Islamist
terrorists don't seem to have ICBMs but the US would like to prevent them from obtaining nuclear technology anyway.
> >> >Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is
> >> >"making stuff up".
> >>
> >> No, that is the first time you've mentioned it.
> >
> >So? Japanese politicians claiming Japan is not in violation of their own
> >Constitution are making stuff up.
>
> I have just realised you lead me into an Article 9 argument.
It is you who brought up Article 9 claiming it prevented them from taking responsibility to defend themselves by such as a
"real" military.
> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
The nuclear fuel and MOX came and went without incident without what you term an offensive force.
So get the ability to protect a fleet of tankers, among other things, which is what I said before you came in claiming
their Constitution prevented them from doing so.
> >> You started off saying Japan
> >>should not tow the US line and I pointed out practical reasons why they can't or
> >> shouldn't.
> >
> >Like bringing up Article 9 when it is practically a dead issue, and even 70% of
> >Japanese in survey believe the Constitution should be revised.
>
> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
Why is that the only issue to you? What happened to you saying Article 9 stood in Japan's way? Do you stand with the
ruling coalition politicians in claiming that Japan is not yet in any violation of Article 9, even after deployment to the
Middle East, with live weapons and the authorization to kill if needed?
> >> Obtaining offensive weapons is very different to peace keeping in
> >> East Timor.
> >
> >Irrelevant to the issue of Article 9, and Japan has the ability to wage war.
> >They
> >don't need to win or conquer anyone to do it.
>
> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
As soon as Japanese step off the planes with equipment in January or February, they can be part of an "international
dispute". And some unlucky Japanese is probably going to make history, though they will not be well remembered. It seems
such a result will be the only way Japan will learn a lesson.
> >>>And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese
> >> >wring
> >> >their hands?
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you are talking about.
> >
> >Expense and accuracy are irrelevant. Rockets are missiles. Even airliners are
> >missiles.
>
> You are insane. Rocks are potential weapons too.
Rocks are not missiles.
> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
So what? If they spent that six percent of their budget better, which is an amount more than most of the rest of the world
has for their military, or increased spending, they would be able to better do so.
> >> Well of course they could hit Argentina for selling their oil to the US but I
> >> don't think they would.
> >
> >What Japan would do is irrelevant, as they are never supposed to be able to do
> >any
> >such thing. Read Article 9.
>
> They could crash an oil tanker a Chinese ship. No point in asking, you think
> that is war potential don't you?
No, but it could start a war.
> BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
With a few trillion dollars? Why not?
And it would seem even the US is not able to have such control over its own energy supply, ie, the Middle East.
> >> While I wouldn't want an H2A crashing on my house they
> >>would really have to build a warhead first. The H2A is not a weapon, and it is
> >> so unreliable that it is not even a potential weapon.
> >
> >What do you think of North Korean missiles, or their space program, and how is
> >that
> >any consolation to the Japanese or US governments, or panicky Japanese? If North
> >Korea can hit Fukuyama, they are welcome to do it, and I'd like to see a North
> >Korean missile with the range to strike the US.
>
> Why even quote if you aren't addressing what I said. Are you talking to me or
> the voices in your head? Did you take your medication today?
Why does a fueled rocket need a "warhead" to be a missile?
> BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
> >Why is an F-15 with 500 kg bombs not an offensive weapon, or lobbing grenades at
> >Korea not offensive?
>
> I have already addressed this. It is a matter of effectiveness. Because Japan
> does not have refuelling craft an F-15 would barely be able to reach Nth Korea
> and then would have minimal payload.
So they can launch an ineffective attack, but it would somehow not be offensive? Is that what the Koreans or Chinese would
agree to? And what can Japan do to foreign ships and planes much nearer?
> > Were F-15s or grenades not offensive in Iraq, either?
>
> They were part of system that Japan is unable to replicate.
>
> BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
So spend the money and risk the lives to get it. People do not want the US being global policeman or straining itself
trying to defend a widening circle of allies and foreign territory, while other nations spent their money to benefit
themselves like Japan. I'd like to hear how long you think the US can keep such behavior up.
> > I'm sure
> >Japan would think differently if F-15s came from Asia or Asian neighbors
> >attacked
> >Japan with small explosives.
>
> They would certainly be very surprised.
They'd immediately know, or at least claim, that such an attack would be offensive.
> >> In your mind any weapopn can kill therefore is an offensive weapon.
> >
> >No. But read Article 9.
>
> Careful Eric a moment ago you were saying that airliners were weapons.
They are. You disagree?
> >> Should they be armed with nerf bats?
>
> apparently
--
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:15:43 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
>> >
>>>The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do
>>not.
>>
>> Just like the rest of the world doesn't.
>
>The rest of the world does not take responsibility for their own national
>defense?
You have forgotten what you have written already. Go back and check what you
were talking about not doing.
>
>> >> Why does Japan have so much nuclear
>> >
>> >Because they don't know when to give up. Other nations have learned years or
>> >decades earlier.
>>
>> And so they burn more fossil fuels. Carefull Eric you are going around in
>> cirlces.
>
>No, they do not have to use more fossil fuels. They just chose that life.
They can use magic crystals? Yes, I've seen Star Gate on TV as well. Eric, it's
not real.
>
>> >> and hydro power?
>> >
>> >Money for construction firms and political connections.
>>
>>So your alledged motivate invalidates the benefits of hydro power. You have out
>> done yourself.
>
>You may have noticed the recent trend against more dam construction. There is
>not a lot more which can be done anyway.
What is your point?
>
>>>>>So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And
>>still
>> >> >offensive.
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> >So use army helicopters.
>> >>
>> >> Army helicopter have less range
>> >
>> >That's what carriers are for. Are you claiming that a "crappy" Cobra is not
>> >offensive?
>>
>> They don't have carriers.
>
>You may have noticed they decided to build one or two.
>
Let me know when they are commisioned.
>> Cobras are only effective when put in favourable
>> tactical situation, which that Japan is entirely unable to provide outside of
>>Japanese terrority. For instance an ancient Nth Korean Mig 19 would tear a Cobra
>> into little peices of metal.
>
>That's where more modern fighters are useful.
>
Of course Japan does not have the ability to put a modern fighter into hostile
territory. I said that several messages ago.
>> To use attack helicopters offensively an entire
>> division (15,000+) would have to be in place.
>>
>> >> and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
>> >> very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
>> >> http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
>> >
>> >The issue is not effective, crappy, or scary.
>>
>> No, you are wrong. To classify weapons as offensive or defensive the
>>effectiveness of that weapon in various circumstances is the issue. An anti tank
>>gun is a defensive weapon as you can't carry one up to a tank, set it up, bed it
>> in, then fire at the tank. A tank would be an offensive weapon, however Japan
>> has no ability to put them into an offensive situation.
>
>Put a tank on a ship.
>
The Japanese military do not have ships that can carry tanks and land them. I
have said this several times but you don't want to think it through.
>> >第２章 戦争の放棄
>> >
>> >第９条【戦争の放棄，軍備及び交戦権の否認】
>> >
>> >
>>>（１）日本国民は，正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠��造亡�瓩掘す餮△糧�阿燭訐鐐�(B
>>>と，武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は，国際紛争を解決する��蠱覆箸靴討蓮け糞廚砲海譴鯤鉸�(B
>> >する。
>> >
>>>（２）前項の目的を達するため，陸瘢雹瘢雹海空軍その他の戦力は，これを保持しない。国の交戦権
>> >は，これを認めない。
>>
>> Do you think that means Japan cannot defend itself from, for example an
>> amphibious invasion of Honshu?
>
>That's what it meant before they created the SDF to public protest.
>
>> If so you would probably be the only one.
>
>No I wouldn't. A report Monday night revealed only 15% of Japanese would defend
>Japan in a war.
15% of 120million is a big army.
>But I don't believe Japan
>should not defend itself, anyway. Japan should have their own military,
>considerably more powerful than the JSDF, and not
>be dependent on the US.
>
Yes that is your opinion. Remember what happened last time they tried that. Did
you know that even the Japanese Empire at it's largest point still could not
provide the resources they needed? Even if the US had retreated to the mainlaind
and they had won the war Japan would not have gotten what they wanted. This is
where we started. Japan is not capalable physically or legally to defend itself.
>>Section 1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international
>>disputes"; an
>> invasion does not cover either case.
>
>An invasion is not an international dispute?
>
I would say an invasion is very much a domestic issue.
>> >Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
>>
>> I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.
>
>It's in senryoku.
>
Senryoku is one word. You can't have a word inside another one. "Potential" is a
kanji.
>> The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
>> threatened.
>
>Perhaps you would like to convince the Koreans and Chinese,
Do you really think any of them are worried about Japan? Read what they say.
They say things like a "rearmed Japan", which is what you are advocating, a NE
Asian arms race. Of course Japan would lose.
> or distrustful Middle Easterners.
I don't think the Hino Maru is bothering too many Iraqis.
> The Maritime SDF, for
>example, could stop using the Rising Sun banner.
This is a minor point, but count the stripes.
>
>>In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
>> which given the context I think is accurate.
>
>My Ex word calls it "military power".
I know. I disagree, what do you think?
>
>> >Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the
>> >Maldives.
>> >You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.
>>
>>"Not going anywhere" in the context of a paragraph regarding invasion. I am not
>> sure how they would get to the Maldives using JSDF equipment,
>
>They aren't limited to SDF equipment. They could go on a cruise ship.
And they could borrow a couple of nuclear weapons from the US. You are making up
stuff again.
>
>> maybe they could put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.
>
>People can slip into Maldives unnoticed, and they have noticed that weakness
>themselves. Maldives also lacks what they
>call an army.
Well send the Hashin Tiger with their baseball bats, I am sure you think Hanshin
is illegal under Art 9 as well.
>
>>>So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces
>> >and
>> >see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
>>
>> Why? Japan does not threaten any of them.
>
>I just asked for how they compare, because you seem to take such offense at
>claiming Japan has a modern and expensive
>force,
No I didn't say that you are making up stuff again, Japan has (on paper at
least) a very potent defensive force. It has extremely limited offensive
capability.
> not whether Japan would fight lesser military powers of the world or not.
it's not "would" it's "could", or in this case "could not".
> Would asking you to compare the
>Australian military to that of Eastern Europe also be so absurd?
Absurd, no, irrelavent.
>>>>And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
>> >> of Japan's territorial waters.
>> >
>> >How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory
>> >before
>> >without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese,
>>
>> When they had offensive forces.
>
>So you see only war when Japan has "offensive forces"?
>
Only wars Japan starts.
>> > or even hostiles in the Middle East.
>>
>> "hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.
>
>No, "hostiles". It is you claiming even a machine gun on a rowboat would
>threaten Japanese ships or cargo. But they don't
>do it, nor have they been motivated to do such things before they noticed more
>recently how supportive Japan is of the US
>or US policy.
>
Because Japan's friend is the worlds biggest military. The US has already fought
one war to guarrantee Japan's oil supply.
----
Eric Takabayashi
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 04:42:41 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:15:43 +0900, Eric Takabayashi ...
> >> >
> >>>The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do
> >>not.
> >>
> >> Just like the rest of the world doesn't.
> >
> >The rest of the world does not take responsibility for their own national
> >defense?
>
> You have forgotten what you have written already. Go back and check what you
> were talking about not doing.
Eric: They could also look for other sources of energy, use less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely
transported nuclear fuel or MOX.
Brett: Which is what they have been doing.
Eric: And which is something they could keep doing if not reliant on the US.
Brett: You are saying "try harder", unfortunately the answer is not that simple.
Eric: The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do not.
Brett: Just like the rest of the world doesn't.
What are YOU claiming the rest of the world does not do? Look for other sources of energy? Use less energy? Do with less
defense? "Try harder"?
Try which or what harder?
> >No, they do not have to use more fossil fuels. They just chose that life.
>
> They can use magic crystals? Yes, I've seen Star Gate on TV as well. Eric, it's
> not real.
They can not use "more fossil fuels", which is what you claim they will do if they stop relying on nuclear or hydroelectric
power. No, they can conserve, and look for other sources of energy which are more plentiful than hydroelectricity and safer
than nuclear. Magic has nothing to do with it. It is what they will have to do when fossil fuels runs low anyway.
> >You may have noticed the recent trend against more dam construction. There is
> >not a lot more which can be done anyway.
>
> What is your point?
My statement about dam construction being about money and political connections (as opposed to flood prevention, for
example) has nothing to do with invalidating any alleged benefits of hydro power. There is however, a limit on how much
power can be produced, particular when nearly every river is dammed already, and there is increased opposition from the
public and local governments.
> >> They don't have carriers.
> >
> >You may have noticed they decided to build one or two.
>
> Let me know when they are commisioned.
And show me when Japan's neighbors declare war on them for having offensive capabilities or equipment, which they already
have.
> >> Cobras are only effective when put in favourable
> >> tactical situation, which that Japan is entirely unable to provide outside of
> >>Japanese terrority. For instance an ancient Nth Korean Mig 19 would tear a Cobra
> >> into little peices of metal.
> >
> >That's where more modern fighters are useful.
>
> Of course Japan does not have the ability to put a modern fighter into hostile
> territory. I said that several messages ago.
You are the one saying Japanese F-15s can take 500 kg bombs to Asia.
What capabilities do you claim North Korea has, by the way? Other than the missiles, do you believe they have an offensive
force capable of even reaching Japan en masse?
> >Put a tank on a ship.
>
> The Japanese military do not have ships that can carry tanks and land them. I
> have said this several times but you don't want to think it through.
Try looking up "landing craft" and Japan or SDF during your next Google search. Not only do they have what are called the
equivalent of US assault craft, even in armament, they are replacing older "landing craft" Japanese already had. Not only
can the new craft carry tanks, they can carry two or three helicopters which can also take off from deck. I remember when
those craft first came out, the the stir they created.
And "landing craft" are not the only way Japan can and does transport personnel and arms. Not even the US is so dependent on
"landing craft" for their operations.
> >> Do you think that means Japan cannot defend itself from, for example an
> >> amphibious invasion of Honshu?
> >
> >That's what it meant before they created the SDF to public protest.
> >
> >> If so you would probably be the only one.
> >
> >No I wouldn't. A report Monday night revealed only 15% of Japanese would defend
> >Japan in a war.
>
> 15% of 120million is a big army.
And what of the other 85% who say they would not fight or do not believe their country has the right to fight even in self
defense, when you claim I am the only one?
BTW, I do not recall the nations at the top of the list (there were about 40 or 50), but I did see China partway down, and
88% of them responded they would fight for their country in a war.
> >But I don't believe Japan
> >should not defend itself, anyway. Japan should have their own military,
> >considerably more powerful than the JSDF, and not
> >be dependent on the US.
>
> Yes that is your opinion. Remember what happened last time they tried that.
Their problem then was the scale of their aggression and their behavior in their conquered lands, because the western powers
were initially able to tolerate Japan beating Russian and Chinese forces, or colonizing the Korean Peninsula, because they
had done such things, as well. So what about the last time Japan was strong? Their sordid histories don't prevent Western
powers from maintaining powerful militaries or exerting influence abroad.
> Did you know that even the Japanese Empire at it's largest point still could not
> provide the resources they needed?
They were wasting resources fighting, and the US had problems with resources then, too, even daily necessities.
> Even if the US had retreated to the mainlaind
> and they had won the war Japan would not have gotten what they wanted. This is
> where we started. Japan is not capalable physically
Only because they choose not to be. Even five decades ago the US wanted Japan to be able to defend itself. Japan responded
they preferred to develop their economy.
> or legally to defend itself.
Are you still claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 despite your own admission, finally, that they do have some
offensive capabilities outside their own territory?
> >>Section 1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international
> >>disputes"; an
> >> invasion does not cover either case.
> >
> >An invasion is not an international dispute?
>
> I would say an invasion is very much a domestic issue.
Even for the invaders? Was the war in the Pacific not an international issue?
> >> >Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
> >>
> >> I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.
> >
> >It's in senryoku.
>
> Senryoku is one word.
And what is the word?
> You can't have a word inside another one. "Potential" is a
> kanji.
So call it military potential. Are you one of the corresponding word for word translators?
> >> The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
> >> threatened.
> >
> >Perhaps you would like to convince the Koreans and Chinese,
>
> Do you really think any of them are worried about Japan?
Yes.
> Read what they say. They say things like a "rearmed Japan",
No, they talk about things Japan is doing now, and was doing at the time the statements were made, such as when the SDF goes
abroad or plans to go abroad.
> which is what you are advocating, a NE Asian arms race.
No, I am not advocating an arms race. China can already kick Japan's ass, and Japan would not be able to take North Korea.
What Japan's neighbors do about their fears about Japan would be their own decision.
> Of course Japan would lose.
They would not be the number one force in Asia, no. So what? They do not need to be the number one force to defend
themselves.
> > or distrustful Middle Easterners.
>
> I don't think the Hino Maru is bothering too many Iraqis.
You haven't seen Japanese reports from Iraq or the interviews with Iraqis about what the mere presence of the armed and
uniformed JSDF would mean to them even if they claim to provide security or humanitarian aid? You don't know the reason
Koizumi had to appear on Al-Jazeera?
> > The Maritime SDF, for example, could stop using the Rising Sun banner.
>
> This is a minor point, but count the stripes.
What of the number of stripes?
> >>In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
> >> which given the context I think is accurate.
> >
> >My Ex word calls it "military power".
>
> I know. I disagree, what do you think?
What do I think about a disagreement between you and some dictionaries?
What do you think?
"Offensive" what, by the way? Offensive force? Military offensive?
> >> >Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the
> >> >Maldives.
> >> >You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.
> >>
> >>"Not going anywhere" in the context of a paragraph regarding invasion. I am not
> >> sure how they would get to the Maldives using JSDF equipment,
> >
> >They aren't limited to SDF equipment. They could go on a cruise ship.
>
> And they could borrow a couple of nuclear weapons from the US. You are making up
> stuff again.
Why can the JSDF not go to a weak territory like Maldives with existing SDF equipment and personnel and take it?
http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jul1000.html
The SDF can go all the way to Hawaii or even the Middle East with no problem.
> >> maybe they could put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.
> >
> >People can slip into Maldives unnoticed, and they have noticed that weakness
> >themselves. Maldives also lacks what they
> >call an army.
>
> Well send the Hashin Tiger with their baseball bats, I am sure you think Hanshin
> is illegal under Art 9 as well.
No. But I don't know why you so downplay the strength and capabilities of the SDF when you claim they cannot go anywhere or
do anything offensive. Japanese can get into a panic over North Korean spy ships, personal subs and rafts, but the Japanese
can do so much better than that, while people like you deny they have offensive capabilities.
> >>>So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces
> >> >and
> >> >see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
> >>
> >> Why? Japan does not threaten any of them.
> >
> >I just asked for how they compare, because you seem to take such offense at
> >claiming Japan has a modern and expensive
> >force,
>
> No I didn't say that you are making up stuff again, Japan has (on paper at
> least) a very potent defensive force. It has extremely limited offensive
> capability.
Unless you are claiming zero offensive capability, that comes under Article 9.
> > not whether Japan would fight lesser military powers of the world or not.
>
> it's not "would" it's "could", or in this case "could not".
Why can't Japanese get into their ships or planes and fight North Korea? It is reported by GSDF officials one reason the
tanks train the way they do is because the terrain is like North Korea.
> > Would asking you to compare the
> >Australian military to that of Eastern Europe also be so absurd?
>
> Absurd, no, irrelavent.
If Japan has a superior force to any country that calls their force a national "army" for example, with offensive
capabilities of any kind, why is it irrelevant?
> >>>>And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
> >> >> of Japan's territorial waters.
> >> >
> >> >How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory
> >> >before
> >> >without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese,
> >>
> >> When they had offensive forces.
> >
> >So you see only war when Japan has "offensive forces"?
>
> Only wars Japan starts.
So what would be wrong with Japan building up their strength to defend themselves to cut their ties with the US, and not
trying to invade? Japanese were in a hysteria and some other nations were concerned when India and Pakistan each built their
own nuclear devices. It was claimed it would start an Asian arms race, too.
Then nothing happened. What is the problem if India and Pakistan build themselves nuclear devices and long range missiles?
> >> > or even hostiles in the Middle East.
> >>
> >> "hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.
> >
> >No, "hostiles". It is you claiming even a machine gun on a rowboat would
> >threaten Japanese ships or cargo. But they don't
> >do it, nor have they been motivated to do such things before they noticed more
> >recently how supportive Japan is of the US
> >or US policy.
>
> Because Japan's friend is the worlds biggest military. The US has already fought
> one war to guarrantee Japan's oil supply.
That was for Japan? And do you claim that the US Navy is protecting tankers to and from Japan, too? Japan can still defend
their own territory without the US.