Japan halts Iraq troop dispatch

CNN ^ | November 13, 2003 | AP

[yonif]

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- The attack on Italian forces in Iraq will force Japan to postpone its dispatch of troops to that country until sometime next year, a top government spokesman said Thursday.

Japan was hoping to send its first batch of troops to Iraq to help rebuild the country by the end of 2003. But Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said the security situation is not yet stable enough.

[Modernman]

Please forgive us for assuming that you are men.

If you know anything about Japanese politics, you'd know that the decision to send troops was extremely difficult for the government. Japan is just starting to come out of its foreign policy shell. A dozen or so dead Japanese soldiers would have been a major setback for the Japanese government's nascent efforts to expand Japan's international role.

[halfdome]

Apparently you didn't read the article. Japan was sending troops to help in the rebuilding, not "security troops".

[KellyAdmirer]

I'm curious about your distinction between "troops" and "security troops." I have seen them referred to both ways in the media. Kindly enlighten me.

[halfdome]

My distinction between "troops" and "security troops"? I don't have one, I was using the terms used in the article. There is a distinction between troops sent to help in rebuilding, which would not expect to engage in hostilities, and troop sent to provide security, which would most likely be peforming dangerous duties.

[KellyAdmirer]

If there is no distinction, why are you giving me a hard time and saying I must not have read the article? Perhaps if you were familiar with Japanese "troops," you would know that Japan by its Constitution only has a "Self-Defense Force" and thus all its troops can be characterized as for security, i.e., defensive, purposes only. I think "security troops" is a perfectly adequate manner in which to describe them and stand by that.

[halfdome]

I sure didn't mean to give you a hard time. Your post I replied to said "They won't send security troops because the security situation is not stable enough? Why do they think they are going there in the first place?" I thought you meant they were going there to provide security, which they were not. They were going to help in rebuilding.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"What, we Republicans are getting Clintonian all of a sudden? So the president says major combat operations are over while a sign (not his doing of course) over his head says "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (which had nothing to do with the war we are now told but we were not told that back then for some reason-we stupid Americans seem not to ask the right questions) and it was our fault to ASS-U-ME that Bush meant the war was over."

If Bush meant that the war was over, why did he say this: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

...The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.)"

That was from the speech he gave on the USS Abraham Lincoln May 1, 2003. Stop trying to spin this into something that it is not. He never declared an end to the war, if anything he declared that the work was far from over. Do you want more? I have more.

But then to you, I suppose that an aircraft carrier that had had the longest deployment coming back with no combat losses would not be reason for the crew to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Yep, them not losing anyone in battle would not be accomplishment of a mission, it must be Bush's fault.

[Destro]

Very Clintonian in saying one thing while implying another.

[Jeff Chandler]

By destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Truman administration basically killed the GOP/Republican allied areas of Japan. Those cities had more people immigrate to work on Republican controlled land in the 1880-1930 time frame than any other area.

So, basically, Truman altered the demographics of the vote in Japan for the next 100 years... Sunday's vote on Koizumi is proof that it worked.

The US GOP is real good at letting their allies get fried.

Um, dude...Truman was a Democrat.

[Jeff Chandler]

My swipe at Japanese manhood was a reaction to the very silly notion that WE should apologize to them.

[bonesmccoy]

Jeff,

I was talking about our existing GOP leadership... not Truman.

Everytime the GOP builds allies, the democrats come in and fry the GOP international allies when the GOP loses the next election...

If the GOP had stopped Truman's use of the bomb in 1945, they would have had a massive supply of inexpensive labor for the next 20 years.

[Jeff Chandler]

If the GOP had stopped Truman's use of the bomb in 1945, they would have had a massive supply of inexpensive labor for the next 20 years.

Now there's an angle I've never considered.

[bonesmccoy]

Jeff,

Here's more interesting factlets:

1. Initial waves of Japanese immigration occurred during the 1880's - 1920's during major GOP tenures in the White House.
2. Immigration from Japan mostly originated in Southern Japan and were farmers destined for California central valley farms (alot around FR's own hometown of Fresno) and Hawaiian sugar cane/pineapple plantations...both of whom were controlled by Republican owned corporations.
3. Immigration occured via passenger vessels... who controlled those passenger lines? I haven't found the answer yet... but will soon.

So, let's see if I have my politics right... the GOP owned plantations import a bunch of asians to work their land, then give their worker's kids schools, citizenship, and the right to own land. These kids then build their own small businesses and begin contributing to the 1920's Hawaiian and California tax base.

Racists in California begin to limit the growth and expansion of small business owned by Japanese Americans. Eventually, FDR kills those businesses, moves the people to concentration camps, and then claims that the process is patriotic.

Guess who then takes those farms, businesses, homes, and more?

You guessed it.

Every one of those areas are now controlled by RAT liberal/socialists.

Just look at Los Angeles County, the city of San Jose, Mountain View, San Francisco, Alameda County/Oakland/San Leandro, and East LA.

What could not be taken by competition was seized by force.

Now, where was the GOP in that process?

Well, the biggest GOP leader failed to protect even their own farms from having their employees removed to camps.

And, where did these employees come from?

They were mostly immigrants from Kyushu (Southern Japan). Why? Because there was a civil war in Japan around the 1870's, the southern and northern political interests were fighting for control of the nation (sound familiar?).

The Southerners lost.

Some families sought to move to Hawaii and California to build a new life (sound familiar?).

Then, FDR's socialist agenda interceded... creating a whipping boy... the Jap... who was the cause of all problems (economic, political, and social).

Don't laugh... Hitler used the same racial propaganda tactics to create a European whipping boy, the "Eternal Jew".

The confluence of racist views and war is dangerous.

History will judge those who have shown the weak prediliction towards racist views.

Unfortunately, most historians view the war in the Pacific with recognition of the racial overtones in the conflict.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Then we are owed an apology for that sitcom like moment when Bush was on the aircraft carrier when we were told the war was over."

Let us look at this another way. If Bush declared the war was over, why were the troops not sent home immediately? The answer is because Bush did not declare the war over and he clearly did not intend for anyone to think that the war was over. It has been the media that has been Clintonian on this for all these months. You want to criticize the administration, criticize them for not battling the media spin much better during this time. They have been fighting it, but obviously not nearly enough if you are still believing the media spin because you are not hearing what the White House is actually saying.

[cmak9]

If I'd told you in 1990 that sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers to the Middle East to put an arab king back on his throne would result in the twin towers falling and 3,000 U.S. dead (nevermind the billions of tax dollars wasted), would you want to do it?

So... you're saying 9/11 is our fault. I see. That "arab king" had more legitimacy than the arab lunatic that was trying to replace him. Believe me, I'm not a huge fan of being the world's policeman, but it seems to me that history shows that when we don't do it, the results become far worse in terms of American lives lost (WWII).

[Gunslingr3]

So... you're saying 9/11 is our fault. I see.

No, I'm saying it is a consequence of our actions. I'm not speaking to whether the consequence was warranted, merely pointing out the cause and effect.

That "arab king" had more legitimacy than the arab lunatic that was trying to replace him.

Why? Because his family was left in charge by Europeans? The Declaration of Indpedence indicates to me he has but one source of legitimacy, and he wasn't looking to it.

Believe me, I'm not a huge fan of being the world's policeman, but it seems to me that history shows that when we don't do it, the results become far worse in terms of American lives lost (WWII).

Have you considered that was a consequence of our determination to get involved in one Europe's earlier brew-ups? In the first few months of 1917 the Tsar had already abdicated in Russia. The social democrats were trying to form a government from the various political factions. It wasn't until after the U.S. entered the war that Germany loaded Lenin up in a railcar and sent him to Russia in a bid to close the battles on that front. Have you ever considered that our first effort to 'make the world safe for democracy' might well have been a critical ingredient in bringing communism to power in Russia? How many millions died from that unintended consequence? How many millions still suffer from liberty lost? Our involvement did lead to Imperial Germany's defeat, and unintentionally provided the circumstances for Hitler's rise. How different might Europe have been had we stuck to our traditional policy of minding our own damn business and not getting caught up in the wars of others? If you want to take credit for the 'successes' of interventionism, who gets the blame for their unintended consequences (or failures?)

[cmak9]

You make some good points. I assume your advocating a total isolationist policy, which, I must admit, does have some appeal to me. I just don't know if it's workable. Might be worth a try though.