Brett Robson wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:26:05 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
> >
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:44:34 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
> >> >
> >> >The 2-Belo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
> >> >> think of Japan repealing
> >> >> Article IX completely.
> >> >
> >> >I have encouraged it for years. They should take
> >> >responsibility for their own country and its defense if
> >> >necessary.
> >>
> >> They can't, the reality of the Pacific still holds. Japan could effectively
> >> (sort of) defend it's territory from attack as at the end of that war. But
> >> consider an oil tanker travelling from Kuwait to Japan. Every tin pot country
> >> with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to a row boat could interfere with Japans
> >>main engergy import and what could Japan do about it? Japan would have to have a
> >>navy rivalling the USN with an aircraft carrier on station near the Gulf, one in
> >> the Indian Ocean and one in the Pacific, a requirement of 6 carrriers.
> >
> >So do it, spending (more of) their own money and risking their own lives if
> >necessary, instead of leeching off the US or whining to the UN. Imagine the
> >employment opportunities for Japanese. Even gaijin in Japan would be able to
> >cash
> >in on this.
>
> First of all that would be illegal under the constitution an aircraft carrier is
> an offensive weapon platform.

And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival the US
Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.

As has been pointed out here tonight and numerous times elsewhere, the reality of the
situation is Japan has been in violation of Article 9 since the beginning of the SDF.

> Of course that can be changed.

Like 70 percent of Japanese in survey agree Article 9 should be changed, and how the
ruling coalition is now openly able to talk about doing.

> But imagine the international outcry as Japan lays the keel of it's first carrier.

Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to call
them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive. As not offensive as having one of
the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest military
budgets.

Yes, just listen to the Chinese and Koreans protest as Japan has decided to send an
armed force abroad.

Yet again.

Just tonight, one of the reasons cited for South Koreans being willing to go along
with their own government deciding to send what will be the third largest contingent
(after the US and UK) to Iraq, was them watching how pacifistic Japan was willing to
send its own forces to the region. South Korea may have complained or thought it was
regrettable when Japan first made the decision to send the SDF to Iraq, but now it is
precisely one reason they are willing to risk more of their own citizens' lives. Of
course the primary reason cited was them thinking going along with what they thought
the US wanted would help South Korea get what they wanted with North Korea.

Sad. You'd think they'd agree to send their soldiers abroad to help rebuild Iraq, or
be part of the international community. But no, it's just another way of having their
hand out.

--
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php

Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet their
urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future development of
economic opportunities and civil society.

Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.

Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.

High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other supplies.