Posted on 09/12/2001 11:33:01 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
Govt adopts 6-point plan to assist U.S. relief effort
Yomiuri Shimbun
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi heads the council, which met at the prime minister's official residence in Tokyo.
The government has readied its two official airplanes at Haneda airport in Tokyo to assist with the repatriation of Japanese nationals from the United States, officials said.
Justice Minister Mayumi Moriyama reportedly told the council that she had ordered the Immigration Bureau to tighten immigration procedures, but also to smoothly process passengers from returning flights that were diverted from the United States.
According to officials, the meeting was attended by almost all Cabinet members, except for Koji Omi, state minister for Okinawa, northern territories and science and technology policy, who was sent to New York from Boston to confirm the safety of Japanese nationals in the city; Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma, who is on an official trip overseas; and Defense Agency Director General Gen Nakatani, who was returning to Japan from Indonesia.
Koizumi told the meeting: "It was an extremely vicious and unforgivable act of violence. This is a challenge not only to the United States, but to all democratic countries."
The prime minister reportedly asked the council members to take thorough measures to combat terrorism, saying: "It is important for countries to cooperate with each other to deal with terrorism. We should prevent any disruptions to our economy."
Concerning Koizumi's planned visit Sunday to Southeast Asia, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda suggested it might be canceled, saying, "We should make a decision after observing developments."
In addition, the government is making both official contributions to the U.S., Tokyo is making relief funds available to their sister city of New York, and every member of the diet is being asked to pony up personal funds. </font face>
What does this mean? They've been loosening immigration procedures over the last few years, but it's still nothing like the situation in California, for example.
I can only agree with the last of these steps. Not a single taxpayer yen should be 'contributed' (i.e., taken by the government from taxpayers in Japan and redistributed to non-taxpayers elsewhere) to the US or to New York, both of which have more than enough funds available to them already; if Japanese politicians wish to buy good will and show their compassion, then let them do so with their own money.
Contrary to Koizumi's rhetoric, these attacks were NOT a challenge to all democratic countries -- unless there has been a worldwide news blackout on attacks elsewhere -- and they are a direct consequence of the US' interventionist foreign policy. I hope the Japanese government will be very careful not to get itself caught up in the US' own problems, lest it make Japan a future target.
Your statement is one of monumental ignorance. No matter what you think of US foreign policy, we must not let our foreign policy be dictated to us by terrorists. If we change our foreign policy as a result of terrorism then they have succeeded. Japan is right to realize that this is an attack on the entire civilized world and the sovereignty of all nations.
You can count on the fingers of one hand the nations who show the same gratitude after half a century.
There are many individuals who do. The Frenchmen who sat next to me at my previous company was quite vocal about it, though obviously his views differ from his government. What other countries besides Japan? Are there any others? The Philippines pay lip service, but over the years they used the military bases as bargaining chips for aid, so I don't think they count.
Our foreign policy should be dictated by self-interest rather than our interest in the affairs of other countries. Are you suggesting that the US must become more interventionist in order to show a tough stand against terrorism?
Speaking of which, even the Vietnamese deserve credit for kicking out the Red Chinese sponsored Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, not to mention pockets of them who escaped to the United States and, next only to the Cubans, are the most anti-communist of any hyphenated Americans.
And to what do you attribute these attacks, then? Why was the US the only country targeted? I don't hold the US responsible for these attacks; I'm only pointing out a cause-and-effect relationship. To save space and time, let me recommend you take a look at this report:Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
America is no more interventionist than most of the EC.
Really? History begs to differ with you. What would you call -- to cite just a few exmaples from the past few decades -- support for right-wing death squads and/or the governments running them throughout Central and South America (Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Colombia, Haiti, Brazil, etc.), the training of uniformed terrorists at the School of the Americas, active military, logistical, and financial support of dictators around the world (Iran and Indonesia are but a couple of the worst examples), CIA-organized assassinations and coups all over the planet, cruise missile or other air attacks against any number of countries for a variety of spurious reasons, the US' invasions of Grenada and Panama, no-fly zones imposed and enforced primarily by the US in Bosnia and Iraq, US efforts to influence foreign elections (Belarus just the latest instance), US-driven sanctions on Iraq that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians,ad nauseum (literally). How did we lose troops in Lebanon and Somalia if we were just sitting at home minding our own business? Indeed, it was US involvement in Afghanistan that gave Osama bin Laden his big start in the first place.
Yes, we carpet bombed Serbia, and I'm ashamed of that. But we did it at the urging of gutless EC allies who didn't want to do their own dirty work and are hardly in a position to tell us to exercise restraint against an enemy operating in our home territory.
It was a dirty job but someone had to do it, eh? Of all the excuses I've heard for US intervention in Serbia/Kosovo, this has to be the weakest. The US caved in to the urging of the EC? Is the US really so pitiful that it must do as the EC dictates? In fact, I think you'll find that the US was the one twisting arms to get some very reluctant NATO allies to come onboard.
This book is still being written. Others will be included before it ends. We were targeted because, rightly or wrongly, we are pereceived as the leader of the free world.
America is no more interventionist than most of the EC. Really? History begs to differ with you.
This depends on whether you are talking about recent history or, say, 1956 when France and Britain bombed the Suez Canal. I do not approve of our role as the world's policeman. Some of the interventions you mentioned were asinine. Others were necessary. Thanks to our intervention in Chile, f'rinstance, that country is not only free of the scourage of Communism, but others in the region have also shed dictatorships. Without Reagan's intervention in Poland and elsewhere, the iron curtain would still be in place. I'm a midwestern isolationist pacifist by nature, but I do have the strength to admit that making a moral stand for the right isn't always bad even when the odds are long, like on UA93.
Now put aside military/political interventions for a minute and look at economic/social interventions. Who is insisting that the U.S. abolish capital punishment? Adopt the Kyoto protocol? Let them write the economic rules on trade? Who was it that insisted the U.S. retreat when our troops were within walking distance of Baghad a decade ago? Who wanted U.S. troops in Bosnia when we felt it was none of our business? Kosovo, I grant you, was largely a case of DIRTXPOTUS trying to show he was a better globalist than the EC, but they led us there too. The U.S. public would never had gone along were it not for the excuse that it was a NATO responsibility demanded by our European allies. I recall very little EC reluctance until the Serbs showed more resilence than NATO anticipated. By then, the American public, never to supportive of this campaing to start with, was getting cold feet too.
Until Tuesday, I didn't consider Islamic Extremism much of a threat to the U.S. and certainly not our main enemy. All of that changed between 8:45 and 10:10 a.m. Tuesday morning. Russia is welcome to their long coveted warm-water port even if they have to build a bridge of Taliban corpses through Afghanistan to get it, as far as I'm concerned.
Indeed, it was US involvement in Afghanistan that gave Osama bin Laden his big start in the first place.
Which shows mainly that bin Laden is an ungrateful s.o.b. The Russian misadventures in Afghanistan also hastened the end of the Cold War, remember?
Is the US really so pitiful that it must do as the EC dictates?
Our globalists certainly seem to think so. However, just as FDR's motives behind sucking the U.S. into World War II weren't pure, the facist-nazis represented the greater enemy then, just as the Islamic extremists represent the greater enemy now.
Let's hope against hope that this isn't true, and that the final chapter has been written.
America is no more interventionist than most of the EC.
I suppose my 'rant' went more to showing America as interventionist than to drawing a comparison with European countries, who have certainly done more than their share of meddling.
Now put aside military/political interventions for a minute and look at economic/social interventions.
Well, here you'll get no argument; the EU's demands tend to bring out the nationalist in me, too. It's definitely time to let the Europeans fend for themselves and to look to our own needs and interests.
...just as the Islamic extremists represent the greater enemy now...
Unfortunately the cycle of violence in the West vs Islam is much like that of Israel and its Arab neighbors now: a 'chicken and egg' question of non-stop recriminations and counterattacks. Having said that, it is difficult to see how this cycle is to be broken unless some fundamental policy changes are made. I think a good deal will also depend on how Bush reacts to the latest attacks. The US has considerable sympathy and support from the international community right now, and a careful (but devastating) response will probably improve its standing vis-a-vis moderate Muslims, who will be essential allies against the extremists.
Strawman. I said we must not weaken our resolve in the face of terrorism. This would show that we can be intimidated by terrorism and that it is a valid means for them to express political sentiments. If they object to us bombing Iraq with terrorism, then we drop two bombs on Iraq. That's the only rational response.
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.