Trump says Japan doesn't need to help us

www.cnn.com...

"If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War Three ... with our lives and with our treasure," he said, adding, "If we're attacked, Japan doesn't have to help us at all," Trump said. Japan, he claimed, "can watch it on the Sony television, okay, the attack."

This article was meant to put Trump in a bad light, but I think it actually does the opposite.
Trump is calling out what many Americans, even many American soldiers have said for years/decades.
What the heck are we doing in these countries? These relationships have been a one way street for way too long.
I understand we have a world economy and it beneficial to have good relationships. We also know that relationships are only successful if they are
both give and take.

Trump wants Japan to pay for some of its own defense. How is this a bad thing? Why on earth would Americans be against this!
Some want to call out Trump, but keep in mind many past presidents have said the same thing. It only seems like Trump will actually do something about it.

Japan, you have to hand them respect. No other country in the world like it, for sure.

A country where actual nuclear weapons were utilized, thrown into the briefest of chaos.

I am still in awe, at how much Japan thrived in the after math of the war.

Sure, the relationship between the US and Japan had a lot of caveat to it, at first.

Blood was shed on both sides though, and it made a friendship, stronger than anyone would have ever imagined.

The United States remained a military power house. Japan become a technological wonder, and a testament to human perseverance.

I don't know the situation, but I would bet that Japan WANTS control of their own defense assets. They are probably more than willing to let go of the US safety blanket. They can always use our help, but I think they want a future where they do not need it, as well.

a reply to: Archivalist

...and their military is nothing to sneeze at either, to be quite fair.

Top of the line, all across the board.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Part of the negotiations post WWII is that Japan is not to have an offensive military.

Japan decided to take it one step further and put it into their post war constitution that they will never have an offensive military.

Its Article 9 declares "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes".

BBC

I suppose the people were hit hard with guilt for their crimes, and vowed never to do it again (we'll see if that holds).

Some say that's crazy, but Switzerland has pulled it off time and time again.

That may be harder for Japan with China as a neighbor, but who knows.

Maybe we should pull our troops from Japan rather than forcing our will on them. Whatever happens after that is their wish.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Maybe we should pull our troops from Japan rather than forcing our will on them. Whatever happens after that is their wish.

Granted, the military restrictions put on Japan after WWII kind of make things hard for them to assist us in the case of military hostilities in the first place...but whatever, Trump likely isn't aware of that, meetings with Abe or no.

Regardless.. well and good being willing to stand on our own two feet.

Weren't Japanese people protesting US military activity in that area?

"A series of horrific crimes by present and former U.S. military personnel stationed on Okinawa has triggered dramatic moves to try to reduce the American presence on the island and in Japan as a whole"

Peace

a reply to: JAGStorm

Frankly I'm tired of my country putting more concern into how other people run their countries than how we run our own... And it shows.

I'm all for a period of increased isolationism, some other countries are probably ready for it too. Trying to militarize Japan further (which we have been trying to do for some time now) is like asking them to denounce deep seeded religious beliefs.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
Weren't Japanese people protesting US military activity in that area?

Peace

Not just the activity, the outright presence, which has been mostly consolidated to the Okinawa Prefecture. The Okinawan's are culturally different than the rest of Japan, and have taken the short end of the stick quite often.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: JAGStorm

Frankly I'm tired of my country putting more concern into how other people run their countries than how we run our own... And it shows.

I'm all for a period of increased isolationism, some other countries are probably ready for it too. Trying to militarize Japan further (which we have been trying to do for some time now) is like asking them to denounce deep seeded religious beliefs.

Hear hear.

I am much more willing to call it non-interventionism than isolationism as we should still be, as per our founding principles, well open to peace, commerce, diplomacy and friendship with as many other nations as we can, but as to the rest:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Edit per indirect reference - Jefferson:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah I thought so. The OP reads as if the japanese are getting the short end of the stick but in reality it's a little different.

Peace

I think he's boasting...

I feel the same way, though. America is very well capable of fighting it's own battles without help. We're the big brother who looks after our siblings. Japan is an ally and I'm sure they've had their share of war, considering how much of a toll they paid in the last great one. I'd be fine keeping Japan under our wing of protection because it's a beautiful place with beautiful people.

So yes, Japan doesn't have to help the US. We can blow up the world just fine on our own. No point letting them get in to it. If they get attacked, it's only right that we defend them.

a reply to: Praetorius

I am much more willing to call it non-interventionism than isolationism as we should still be, as per our founding principles, well open to peace, commerce, diplomacy and friendship with as many other nations as we can, but as to the rest:

I like your way of saying it better.

Either way, our constitution was set up specifically to prevent imperialistic, or colonialist type wars. The outlines for a standing military were very clear.

Both parties have since loop holed that part of the constitution to the tune where it rings moot. Interventions are now one of the federal governments primary functions, and one of our most notable exports.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

They've protested US military presence, off and on, for decades. Whether it's worse now then it was say in the 80's, I don't know.

Nor care, I now discover. I've been in favor of bringing the boys and girls home for quite a while now... Save in obvious trip wire situations such as the Korean DMZ, etc... Otherwise? Close 'em, sell 'em, bring 'em home and guard the borders. Like they're supposed to be doing.

Going to be people who don't like that...((shrug)).

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Yeah I thought so. The OP reads as if the japanese are getting the short end of the stick but in reality it's a little different.

I think OP reads that Japan gets more benefits of the deal, getting our defense (we would do it without them asking) but if we get attacked, they wouldn't help defend us.

That holds true in some ways, but I don't think that's by choice for Japan as a whole to have that arrangement, it's just baked into our sphere of influence cake.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Not well informed on the subject but who would want to attack Japan? With all the allies (not just US) it has it seems like a selfdestructive choice?

The bases in Japan seems more like it is for the benefit of the US.

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Not well informed on the subject but who would want to attack Japan? With all the allies (not just US) it has it seems like a selfdestructive choice?

The bases in Japan seems more like it is for the benefit of the US.

I think the latter is probable, and also the answer for the former.

If it came down to it, Japan would likely be targeted more for the bases than a dispute with Japan. But that's just my opinion, and I think many in Japan see it that way as well. The only natural enemy I could see Japan having is China, but I don't think it would be worth their while.

Edit: I think the real question is does our objectives for "peace", and strategy to obtain such fall in line with that of our allies? Are we trying to achieve the same thing in the same way? I'd say most of the time the answer would be no, and I doubt that many Americans see it that way, and that's part of the problem.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Historically, and it's bloody, it would be China and Korea. For the longest time, centuries, they flat out didn't much care for each other. Korea hated Japan and China. China hated Korea and Japan, throw Vietnam into that particular mix, as well. Japan hated China and Korea.

Kinda odd, I suppose, seeing as each culture is closely interwoven with the other two, in many ways. But the bloodiest feuds are between neighbors, I suppose.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Japan's Constitution forbade them from having a military. It is something they are looking at changing. They can only have a defensive force and are not allowed to have an offensive military.

a reply to: seagull

I suppose you mean North-Korea by that because my daughter is devoted to k-pop and South-Korea seems like a well developed country....but anyway....maybe that used to be the scenario but with China investing heavy in it's new silk road and making money seems to be on everybodies mind non of these player would risk their position...would they?

Peace