theloniusfleabag Posted January 25, 2005 Report Posted January 25, 2005 Somehow, the whole story is ridiculous. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...raqpoliticspoll Firstly, Japan has not been 'allowed by the USA' to fire weapons abroad, except in self-defence, since 1947. A policy like this is not much good in wartime, what are they doing there in the first place?? Secondly, a large number of those polled want 'the troops out' if they begin taking casualties, and many want them out when the Dutch troops, placed there to protect the Japanese troops, end their tour. Again, what the heck is this in 'wartime'? The Japanese obviously have no political nor popular will to be there, so that only leaves the notion that Japan joined as part of the 'coalition of the coerced', for whatever political favour was promised them by the USA. It is foolish to have such allies. If the USA didn't have the nuts to call and fight a proper war, how can they expect to win with allies that have even less to offer? Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
August1991 Posted January 25, 2005 Report Posted January 25, 2005 The irony is that Japan, unlike the US, does rely on a secure supply of oil from the Middle East. I think that is why they ponied up several billion to pay for dislodging Saddam from Kuwait. This time around, they contributed manpower. The other irony is that democratic Japan and Germany are expressly pacifist. I would not be surprised if our Liberal government proposed a constitutional amendment to that effect. Given current thinking, it might be a vote-winner. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.