Japanese minister calls China a threat

[ShockediSay]

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-22T160459Z_01_KRA211250_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAPAN-CHINA.xml

Japanese minister calls China a threat

By Masayuki Kitano

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said on Thursday that China's military build-up was a threat, given its lack of transparency, triggering an angry retort from Beijing, which said his comments were "highly irresponsible".

"A neighboring country has an atomic bomb and its military spending has been rising for 12 consecutive years. There is no transparency and I view that as a concern, a threat," Aso told a news conference....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, has the Bush administration made us militarily safer and stronger to face such a threat, or have they pissed away our military position with their Iraq attack?

[pfcpittman]

1. Any time a neighboring country has a huge military build up I think you ha

ve to be a little scard.

[pinerow]

4. Especially if that neighbor is Japan..historically, it has been Japan that

harbored imperialist intentions.

[pfcpittman]

7. Historicaly your right but I dont think Japan right now is a threat at all

to its neighbors.

[bpilgrim]

8. Japan is a Nuclear Power and has the U.S. Military Power to call on

Japan could have nukes in very short order with all their Nuclear Power and it is the direction the gov appears to be heading in with the U.S. blessing.

its a mad-mad-world :scared:

peace

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

15. Japan has been number 2 or 3 in the world in Military Spending for decades

and a few years ago has sent it's military forces abroad for the first time since WWII. there is much talk of changing the constitution to allow it to deploy it's troops abroad and for developing Nuclear Weapons, not to mention the prime ministry visiting the controversial Yasukuni shrine that holds the remains of japans war criminals from wwII.

i love japan, i just want to consider all the facts.

BTW: welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ckramer]

24. Japan's military spending is disproportional to the square feet...

of its land...but probably is proportional to its GDP...

But I just wonder who will win the second Sino-Japan war...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jayfish]

32. What's The Other Sign...

that should frighten the Japanese? I don't get it. On the one hand you claim that Japan should be afraid because Chinas military build-up(spending)then when it's pointed out to you that Japan spends much more than China, it's no big deal. Throw me a bone here.

Jay

[ShockediSay]

10. pfcpittman WELCOME

ABOARD!!!

[jayfish]

17. Well Done!

You have all the talking points down-pat. Yer gonna change a lot of minds here. Keep up the good work. :eyes:

Jay

[tx_dem41]

23. Actually what he (or she) said was correct.

Would you like to make a sophomoric implication about me?

[jayfish]

30. I'm Sure That If I Look Back...

through my posts I'll find that I already have. Actually I'm pretty sure of it. Waddya gonna do, give me a lashing via keyboard? :*

Jay

[tx_dem41]

31. No...that seems to be your "expertise".

Feel free to conduct the kangaroo court. Seems like you love doing that.

[jayfish]

33. Heh...

maybe I'm wrong and time will tell. But when someone shows up and posts with a RW slant, I'm gonna call'em on it with as much brevity as possible. I'm not going to sit and type "non-sophomoric" dissertations when I have a pretty good idea of where it will all lead anyway.

[tx_dem41]

35. When you have time, please explain to me how saying....

"Any time a neighboring country has a huge military build up I think you have to be scared" is a RW slant. It sounds like common sense to me. China is having a HUGE military buildup. If you were Japan would you advocate non-preparedness? There is nothing "right" or "left" about that, and I resent that you have attempted to made non-preparedness a policy of the left. Of course, I may be wrong about your post. Time will tell.

[jayfish]

40. There Is A Difference Between...

preparedness and bombast. It's the same tone as the "Axis of Evil" BS. Just look above. Japan cries out that China is a "threat" because of it's supposedly massive military build-up. The poster, using feigned naivete says, OMG Japan should be a'quaken in their boots. When it's pointed out that China has made no overt threats against Japan and that Chinese military spending is lower than that of the Japanese, the poster says, well it's not just the military spending I would be worried about. I mean come on, it's pure subterfuge and it's not just that post. Should Canada and Mexico have been afraid during the Reagan build-up during the 80's?


Jay

[tx_dem41]

2. Short term (1-5 years as of this moment) ...weaker.

After that? Remains to be seen (I am discussing re: China only).

[ClusterFreak]

3. That second thing you said..... n/t

[bpilgrim]

5. Don't Worry Japan... the neoCONs got your back!

peace

[brentspeak]

6. Funny. Even Japanese products are now "Made In China"

Pioneer, Sony, etc., are all manufacturing their stuff in China.

[AzDar]

9. Japan has some nasty karma coming due for the Rape of Nanking.

Woohoo, WWIII....It's a NeoCon dream come true!

[Sequoia]

12. I thought the "Bomb" took care of that Karma.

While the WH eyes the middle east, Asia is really gearing up... Godzilla vs. the Dragon. Remember about 10 years ago how the USA just LOVED everything Japanese and businesses in the US yearned to be like them so a host of aricles and play by play books were written. Songs like "Turning Japanese" were on the radio and kids is USA were told to be more like those smart Japanese students and they could go far. But then Japan got hit by a big recession and that was that.

[AzDar]

13. Nah. The "Bomb" was Pearl Harbor Karma....China's still due.

[Sequoia]

14. (Smacking forehead) Good lord! How could I forget that one!

[bpilgrim]

16. what about the second nuke we drooped on Nagasaki

a defeated, suing for peace nation's city filled with innocent civilians, men, women, children, young and old, friend or foe alike.

"Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the american lexicon, succeeded only by NAGASAKI: - Kurt Vonnegut

peace

[AzDar]

20. I agree, it ALL sucks. But the second bomb arguably SAVED

hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides (Axis and Allies), since Japan had vowed never to surrender (unthinkable, according to the Bushido code, iirc);therefore-by warranting an assault of Mainland Japan, the consequences of which would have made the casualties of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings seem minuscule by comparison.

[anotherdrew]

26. bullshit japan was trying to surrender before the FIRST bomb

it was senseless bloody murder and you KNOW they never would have used the weapon on Germany.

[AzDar]

34. After the Potsdam Conference, Japan was told only UNCONDITIONAL

surrender would be acceptable...(sounds reasonable, if not VITAL to me!)They REFUSED; only wanting to surrender on THEIR terms.Truman stated at that conference,as well as through neutral parties to Japanese emissaries that the United States had developed a weapon that would unleash horrible devastation on Japan. Still,they did not surrender. So they were bombed into submission. It was a terrible thing, undoubtedly, but let's remember that the Japanese picked this particular fight with a dastardly Sunday morning attack on Pearl.
If I were Truman, I would have done the same thing. As I've said, I believe it ultimately SAVED lives.
I don't know why you assert that the U.S. would not have used nukes on Germany...unless for geographical reasons, or perhaps the presence of our troops in Europe?!?

[bpilgrim]

43. the war didn't end until we finally accepted their 1 condition

and the longest hereditary monarchy on the planet, the chrysanthemum throne, remains to this very day as a witness to the wisdom of that decision to let it remain.

think how many lives could have been saved if we had accepted it sooner instead of insisting on the barbaric UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

i pray we never have such horror and immorality inflicted upon us.


peace

[anotherdrew]

44. good points

I don't know what to think... Perhaps in this the US was acting out of nessesity, I've always wondered though.


Hiroshima arguments rage 60 years on


By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

On the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima, new questions are being asked about whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb - and whether the bomb was really responsible for the Japanese surrender.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm

[bpilgrim]

45. for an excellent scholarly archive of the latest on the debate - > LINK

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[anotherdrew]

46. well, then again - look at these quotes...

Some info from your link:
I don't mean to be "quote-slinging" but these are exlemplary. Clearly, many military leaders at the time felt there were other, better options. That they may have been wrong I grant.

# In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction)

Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

# Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . .

In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

# Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

# Time-Life editor Henry R. Luce later recalled that during a May-June 1945 tour of the Pacific theater:

. . . I spent a morning at Cavite in the Philippines with Admiral Frank Wagner in front of huge maps. Admiral Wagner was in charge of air search-and-patrol of all the East Asian seas and coasts. He showed me that in all those millions of square miles there was literally not a single target worth the powder to blow it up; there were only junks and mostly small ones at that.

Similarly, I dined one night with Admiral Radford on the carrier Yorktown leading a task force from Ulithi to bomb Kyushu, the main southern island of Japan. Radford had invited me to be alone with him in a tiny room far up the superstructure of the Yorktown, where not a sound could be heard. Even so, it was in a whisper that he turned to me and said: "Luce, don't you think the war is over?" My reply, of course, was that he should know better than I. For his part, all he could say was that the few little revetments and rural bridges that he might find to bomb in Kyushu wouldn't begin to pay for the fuel he was burning on his task force. (See pp. 331-332, Chapter 26)

[anotherdrew]

47. and this from ol' overkill himself General Curtis E. LeMay...

from: http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in The New York Herald Tribune) publicly:

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

. . .

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

(See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On other occasions in internal histories and elsewhere LeMay gave even shorter estimates of how long the war might have lasted (e.g., "a few days"). (See pp. 336-341, Chapter 27)

[anotherdrew]

48. take a look at the evidence...

most at the time felt it was a mistake (at best) and it's only more recently that we've adopted the "myth of necessity" as the party line.

[psychopomp]

39. Not so sure about that

Allied firebombing intentionally left Germany a smoking ruin. Germany's cities were only so much rubble by V-E day...

[slackmaster]

22. Illogical

Becoming the victim of a violent crime does not excuse a person for violent crimes he or she committed in the past.

[psychopomp]

38. It sounds like you are talking about the mid-eighties

not the mid-nineties. As far as China-Japan disputes, the two countries are joined at the hip economically which should be a deterrent to military hostilities.

[slackmaster]

21. They're still not acknowledging that it happened

:argh:

[lovuian]

18. Yes as America feeds our enemy at least Japan sees

whats going on...

[anotherdrew]

27. the minister is right

[kaneko]

28. The minister

is a dangerous ultra-rightist.

[anotherdrew]

29. If so, then why is he serving in this capacity?

China is a nuclear armed country, building a brand new powerful navy. Japan and China are having a serious fight over ocean oil well territory right now and China is muscling in on it and daring Japan to do anything about it. Such tactics are possible only because China knows it is a threat to Japan. All this minister is saying is that they need to maintain/restore the balance of power. Japan would be foolish to depend entirely on the US to protect it. We are probably NOT trust worthy.

[kaneko]

36. Probably

for the same reason Dr. Rice serves as Minister for Foreign Affairs ib the USA.
Also, rest assured that the trustworthiness of the USA has been debated in Japan for many years.

[anotherdrew]

42. well, we can't seem to do much about the right-wingers here either

My hopes rest that these nations will never EVER fight again.

[psychopomp]

37. Because the Koizumi government is a right-wing government

Actually, the LDP in general is right-wing (it was created with the help of the US out of war criminals and gangsters and maintained over the years with the help of our spooks) and Aso stands out as to the right of many others in his party. I can't stand the guy and he is set to be runner-up in the spot for next Prime Minister.

Sadly, the far-right controls the party as well as the nation now, thanks largely to the media-savvy Junichiro Koizumi making it all palpable..

[anotherdrew]

41. hmmm, yes and it was Koizumi who insisted on going to that shrine

The one that's dedicated to 'war heros' in the Pacific War.

Then there is the issue about which the movie Men Behind The Sun was made, the chemical biological warfare. That's a lot of what the almost out of control protests in china were about not that long ago.

so yes he is indeed a right-winger to a good large extent.

This all seems to me to add up to a dangerous situation.