Backing of risky U.S. war an incalculable loss for Japan

The Asahi Shimbun ^ | By YOSHIBUMI WAKAMIYA, Chief of the Editorial Board,

[DB]

Is Jacques Chirac's talk going to save you from N. Korea's nukes Mr. Yoshibumi Wakamiya?

Sometimes more than talk is required. Thank God there are a few left in the world willing to do the right thing in spite of the hardship.

[DB]

"Like Germany, Japan has blood on its hands from the last century, for which no amount of remorse will probably ever be enough. How is one to interpret Koizumi's apparent lack of concern?"

Doing nothing can also leave blood on your hands.

[Lessismore]

Japan has a plutonium-fueled breeder reactor program. It can become a major nuclear weapons power any time it decides to.

[schaketo]

“Even former President Jimmy Carter condemned preparations for the unilateral attack as ``action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' “

---

I find it remarkable that a man who, as president, tolerated Pol Pot and one million Cambodian deaths, ushered in the Ayatollah Khomeini and decades of international terrorism, ignored Daniel Ortega and the spread of Communism in our hemisphere, and took no effective steps to confront the Soviets as they invaded Afghanistan and caused millions of casualties, is treated as some kind of human-rights advocate. I doubt those who suffered horribly under these regimes see you that way.

These morons should look under the covers before they try to convince the intellectually weak Carter is some sort of voice in the wilderness. Carter was and is a disgrace.

[Jhoffa_]

This is our fault; we have inadvertantly handed nitwits like the author talking points by framing this is a "pre-emptive war"

The fact is that Saddam broke the deal that ended Gulf War 1 and he is a war criminal to boot. That's all the moral justification we need to pursue this, and is a convincing case in and of itself. When the WMD threat and terror links are thrown on top, even Ray Charles can see that our case is irrefutable.

Why we aren't pounding this point I will never know, but it's a mistake that's going to subject us all to more undeserved America Bashing well into the forseeable future.

[Mamzelle]

Japan makes conscious choices to keep its military small. They have the manpower, resources and expertise to eclipse most of the major power militaries, including Russia. I was surprised to see Japan back the US--but they see North Korea. Apparantly they have better sense than the South Koreans.

[elmer fudd]

Japan has a plutonium-fueled breeder reactor program. It can become a major nuclear weapons power any time it decides to.

I remember there was a Japanese official some years back who was asked how long it would take Japan to develop an atomic bomb if they decided to do so. His response was, "five minutes".

[Celtjew Libertarian]

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Japanese decide to take care of North Korea on their own.... I hope they do.

[fightu4it]

This post is a total piece of crap. A waste of bandwidth.

[verity]

IGAF

[Southack]

"Why we aren't pounding this point I will never know..."

We aren't pounding your very correct point simply because we are going to be fighting MORE than just Iraq in the near future, and those other nations/entities are NOT in violation of prior surrender agreements with the U.S. like Iraq is currently, so the logic would fall flat *after* Iraq.

[Southack]

The Japanese author of this article is clearly too young to know to respect his elders.

Koizumi is not only correct to back Bush instead of the two-faced Chirac (who demanded that NATO wage war on Serbia without UN approval in 1999), but also, Koizumi rocks!

Not that the author for this article will be able to see it (he/she needs to get out into the real world more).

[galt-jw]

On this day, a new world structure emerged-one in which the United States is the sole designer and controller of the international order. /I>

On this day, the terms "defending your country" or "retaliating against attacks" was redefined as being the "sole designer and controller of the international order." Of course, this is coming from a nation that saw no problem commiting atrocities to rival hitler in china, or attacking sovereign nations without cause or provocatation.

[eno_]

Yes, in fact this guy could not have got it more wrong.

This is Japan's chance to be on the right side of history, to dominate its region, and even to restore its economic vitality, while Germany and France become the economic sick men of Old Europe.

[Jhoffa_]

But, why not make the strong case we have on Iraq, then toss the other goodies on top like icing on a cake?

It absolutely kills me to hear this garbage about a dictator like Saddam who in a just world would have been dispatched a decade ago..

The guy deserves it. Fault us for upcoming actions all you want, but this guy earned what he's getting. He worked ten years for it.

[galt-jw]

</I>

[Southack]

"But, why not make the strong case we have on Iraq, then toss the other goodies on top like icing on a cake?"

Simply because we can't make that same case against Iran and North Korea, for one.

If we had justified the War on Iraq based upon their violations of their 1991 surrender treaty, sure, the whole world would be supporting us in *this* war, and then everyone and their dog would be saying "North Korea isn't in violation of their armistace treaty" when we turned to take care of them next. Politically, it would have destroyed our chances of taking care of North Korea and/or Iran.

On the other hand, as "state sponsors of terrorism", we can justify the same military actions against Iran and North Korea as we have against Iraq, and generate pretty much the self-same international coalition of the willing against them.

Thus, the new pictures of liberated Iraqis cheering U.S. troops in Umm Qasr must be sending chills up the spines of the various leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang right about now.

But had we used the "treaty violations" justification for waging this war on Iraq, the leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran would be sleeping easy knowing that the same could not be said of them.

GWB and his team are thinking more than just one step ahead in this chess game, and that's one of many things that is driving the French, Germans, Iranians, and North Koreans mad.

[Wonder Warthog]

"We aren't pounding your very correct point simply because we are going to be fighting MORE than just Iraq in the near future, and those other nations/entities are NOT in violation of prior surrender agreements with the U.S. like Iraq is currently, so the logic would fall flat *after* Iraq"

Not true--the next likely candidate is N. Korea, which is in EXACTLY the same boat as Iraq wrt UN "irresolutions". Remember, the Korean War officially never ended--there was simply a "cease-fire" which has lasted half a century. One can argue that the attempt to develop nuclear weapons makes a good case for them having violated the cease-fire.

Now, after N.Korea, your point is well taken.

[Southack]

Perhaps you know something about North Korea that I don't, as I'm unaware of any major material breach by North Korea of their Armistace Treaty.

Bringing a few illegal machine guns into the DMZ does *not* make for world-wide coalition-building enthusiasm.

With Iraq, you can easily make the case that it has violated the 1991 surrender treaty because it has been firing on U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

North Korea, on the other hand, has not fired on any U.S. aircraft in South Korean or International Airspace (at least, none of which I'm aware).

Thus, North Korea is in a different position than Iraq.