Quote (Scaly @ Jul 14 2015 09:41am)

Cases stretching right back to the end of WW2. The worst thing is that when caught the soldiers are just moved elsewhere as Japanese authorities have no jurisdiction over the cases so the military 'disciplines' the offenders themselves.

Okinawans getting super fed-up with it. is a big thing over there atm - http://rt.com/op-edge/247861-okinawa-japan-us-militray-base/
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/11/25/opposition-us-bases-pacific-reaches-turning-point

Quote (duffman316 @ Jul 14 2015 10:05am)

absolutely, japan shouldn't have a crippled military because of rules that were forced upon them 70 years ago

Quote (kalelvszod @ Jul 14 2015 10:13am)

agreed woould greatly tip balance of power in that region perhaps even globally

Quote (duffman316 @ Jul 14 2015 11:16am)

tip it into a more balanced state i'd say~ coincidentally the japanese are quite the irreligious lot

http://media.giphy.com/media/BNkHCHnAsZwRi/giphy.gif

Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ 14 Jul 2015 09:48)

...Japan needs to and should be allowed to militarize by the USA in order to challenge and defend against China in that region .

Quote (Master_Zappy @ 14 Jul 2015 10:08)

Agreed. The national defense and sovereignty of a nation shouldn't be dictated by another country. Their right to self defense is no different than the individual right, and doubly important when its a nation at stake . The historical reasons for disarmament are long since passed.

Quote (thesnipa @ 14 Jul 2015 09:29)

I would agree pacifism would be the best route if they werent located so close to North Korea. Forcing Japan to stay demilitarized would potentially be stopping them from defending themselves. Violence is not a good thing, but it is excusable in self defense. I dont think anyone is fool enough to suggest that Japan is intending to go on the offensive against any other nation, but they live in a region that is incredibly militarized. If perhaps their neighbors viewed them as neutral in the same way that Switzerland is treated it would be one thing, but alot of the future hinges on the rationality of Kim and his regime, IMO a dark prospect at best.

In short i support 100% their militarization as a means of self defense, im not gonna support them getting their hands tied behind their backs in the name of peace if it means danger for their population at the hands of an foreign authoritarian regime.

Quote (Valhalls_Sun @ 14 Jul 2015 15:30)

Has nobody read the body of the articles?

Japan has a military in it's constitution it allows it's self a military equal to that of Great Britain,

The United States is not holding any constitutional or legal/war like hold over Japan the only restrictions on what Japan does or doesn't do are it's parliamentary decisions. The thing is to change or to make changes to it's changes to it's constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses in it's parliament it has to be a Japanese decision. but Abe is facing stiff competition to his ambitious move.

Quote (Scaly @ 14 Jul 2015 10:45)

Okinawa is under a foreign military occupation. Whether their hold is constitutional or legal is irrelevant to whether they actually have a hold and they do have a hold over Japan.

Quote (Valhalls_Sun @ 14 Jul 2015 16:17)

You are purposefully changing venues. yes the military occupation of Okinawa is wrong.

But No the US does not have a hold over the Japanese government's ability to govern or to change it's constitution. That is up to Japanese Parliament to consider and vote on.