Posted on 03/21/2016 1:23:54 PM PDT by Daffynition
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the decision by the Cabinet to adjust the interpretation from one that limited the armed forces to defending Japan was necessary because of regional changes. The decision allows Japan's forces to help protect U.S. ships that may come under attack in nearby waters, Abe said.
"This will be a deterrent," he said during a news conference. "The basic thinking on how the constitution is presently interpreted will not change because of the Cabinet decision that was made."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I'm sure the happenings in the Far East are not going to make front page news; events there are very alarming, with all the saber rattling.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160321_16/
Ping
Not surprising given that PM Abe is the near mirror opposite of ObaMao. Japan has been a loyal and steadfast ally since World War II and understands better than we do that China hegemony in Asia means second class status for them.
Looks like Trump has influenced another issue even before he wins. He’s been calling them out on this for months in his speeches.
A better headline would be: Japan,Italy and Germany agree to act in lockstep on N. Korea.
This is a defense issue...haven’t heard DJT mention this, only references to trade.
Maybe I missed it.
Understand Trump expressed the opinion that any NATO member country where solders are posted needs to pay for our services or we need to get out. Think this position has been adopted by Washington in the past but seems like no one has ever taken any action in this regard. Wonder how the stance by Japan plays into this.
He mentions it when he talks about how much we pay to protect other countries and they don’t pay us a reasonable amount for the cost (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, ...).
And (paraphrasing) “if japan gets attacked we are obligated to defend them but if we are attacked they will not defend us”.
I’ve heard it 5+ times and probably 10+. I listen to at least one speech a week.
Japanese technology is light years ahead of anything else in Asia.
Thank you. I believe you.
I’ll have to listen more carefully now.
I have to concur.
In most things, yes. But the gap has been closed on military applications thanks to traitorous behavior by the Clinton Obama administrations.
Lucky for us, the Japanese have not shared ALL of that technology with us, so they still hold an edge on some applications.
The troubles we face are a metaphor of "neutral" European attitudes towards a belligerent Germany in 1940. All had an army, navy and air force (except for Switzerland, which had no navy). European "intel" showed they had several weeks to prepare for invasion.
Denmark lost 16 soldiers killed, and surrendered in just three hours! Norway was, regretfully, a battleground for the entire war. Finland played both sides, but still faced starvation, deprivations, and lost hundreds of thousands dead.
Belgium and the Netherlands thought the imminent invasion was France's problem, couldn't agree on expensive mutual defenses, and were over-run in a week.
Switzerland had a rifle in every home, and a standby militia of hundreds of thousands of sharpshooters. Mountain tunnels had been mined to collapse. Nazi sympathizers were sent back over the border. Large storerooms were blasted into their mountainsides, where many of their aircraft were protected by zig-zag entrances and heavy steel doors. Roadways had been previously prepared for mines and tank traps, every pass had modern heavy anti-tank artillery trained on the roadways, and their air force consisted of the same Messerschmidt fighter aircraft as the Nazis!
To provoke the Swiss, Goering sent a flight of bombers (protected by German Messerschmidts), across a corner of Switzerland. The Swiss, to assert their neutrality, sent up their air force and shot down a few bombers—whose crews were interned for the rest of the war. (Americans who flew into Swiss territory were also interned). As a backup, a central large mountainous fortress had long been prepared to store ammunition, food, to protect citizens, protect the slopes from German paratroopers, armed with artillery, and to retain the majority of their armed forces.
The Roman expression, "Si vis pacem, para bellum"—"To preserve the Peace, prepare for war" was the lesson learned by Swiss.
How's our defense spending going?
If they don't pay then will a President Trump still feel obligated to defend them?
I don’t remember him saying that. But that section of his speech is about making better deals. My guess is that he’d say we need to honor our agreements but make better ones in the future. He even says we need to honor the Iran agreement until they violate it and hold them to every detail.
We're talking treaties, not deals. Either we stand by our treaties or we don't. Either we stand by our allies or we don't. If Trump wants to rip the treaties up and say to Germany or Korea or Japan no defending you until you pay us for it then why would they want to enter into a treaty with us again? After all some future president can say, "You need to pay us more so I'm ripping up the treaty." What Trump is saying is that we're not allies but mercenaries, loyal only so long as they pay us.
Did you read the rest of my message. Where I said he will even honor an executive agreement (not even a treaty). I haven’t heard him say anything about tearing up treaties.
I saw you say it. I haven't seen where he said it.
I haven’t heard him say anything about tearing up treaties.
Trump has already said he was going to rip up all the trade agreements because they are bad deals. Why should we believe he won't do the same with treaties he thinks are bad deals? It's all about the deal with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.