Rodrigo Duterte, in Japan, Calls for U.S. Troops to Exit Philippines in 2 Years

[humbolt]

and the US is not in Germany to keep the peace there, is it? Isn't the real purpose of having a military presence in Europe to be able to rattle sabres at the Russians?

Not originally, and certainly not in the case of Japan originally either. We can do two things at once.

And a little realism indicates that the nation of Iraq was never "pacified."

Again, in comparison to what it is now, realistically speaking it was pacified. Not being perfect myself, I find demanding perfection in other things unrealistic.

Sounds like the US never left, doesn't it?

It does, if you ignore the fact that we did. Bear in mind that the current administration declared Iraq relatively peaceful upon the occasion of our withdrawal. For political reasons, they failed to understand that the notion that Iraq was relatively peaceful was enforced by the presence of US troops. Perhaps they just didn't care.

 

[j-mac]

Bush is to be blamed for the decisions and statements he made as president. Obama is to be blamed for decisions and statements he made during his. Obama didn't decide to invade a secular nation in the name of fighting Islamic jihad, nor did he negotiate the troop withdrawals. If we have thousands of troops in Iraq once again, then that was a decision made by Obama, and he's responsible for it.

Yes, he failed, and through his inaction, he was able to proceed with a campaign promise of pulling all troops out of Iraq...He never cared what the repercussions were....He was a failure, and now you are trying as hard as you can to whitewash that by trying to blame it on Bush for being there in the first place....What I am saying is regardless of how you feel about the invasion of Iraq, pulling out was a mistake, and that is Obama's fail period.

 

[AlbqOwl]

One of the things I learned during my year in Vietnam was that people do not trust and do not appreciate foreigners occupying their country in an army of occupation. It is only natural.

We did not like the British army of occupation, the Vietnamese did not like ours, and common sense knows that is a natural reaction. Any culture will reject an army of occupation, no matter the best intentions of the occupying force. It just doesn't work that way.

The Japanese resent being occupied, and they resent the occupiers raping their women. We would too.

The incidents of rape and other serious law breaking is extremely rare among U.S. servicemen serving in Japan and I hope are severely dealt with. Every single one of the people who have served there that I know appreciated and respected the Japanese culture and did their best not to offend there. And most Japanese people I know like Americans. So resent us as occupiers? I don't think so since we are not there as occupiers any more.

Angry at the few incidents that have occurred? Absolutely. They should be.

We WERE occupiers there and in Germany in the years following WWII after both surrendered unconditionally. And we maintained 100% control in both countries until both countries had revamped their governments to something that was not threatening to their neighbors or a danger to world peace. And both countries became friends and allies of the USA and most allied nations thereafter and positive influences in the world. That's what happens when the good guys win and aren't shy about capitalizing on their victories. It never happens when we stop short of unconditional victory.

Since part of the agreements made then were that the U.S. would maintain a presence in both countries, not as occupiers but as part of those countries self defense mechanisms--we didn't allow them to have much of that of their own--we have had bases in both countries since then even after we returned full autonomy to the respective new governments. And it has been a good deal for all concerned.

The Japanese have been in negotiations with the U.S. recently to reduce the U.S. presence in Okinawa somewhat as most of our presence in Japan is on that one island, but they have not requested that the U.S.leave. They know it is to their strong advantage for us to be there. The last I read, it does not look likely that there will be an significant change in the current arrangements, however.

 

[Thoreau72]

The incidents of rape and other serious law breaking is extremely rare among U.S. servicemen serving in Japan and I hope are severely dealt with. Every single one of the people who have served there that I know appreciated and respected the Japanese culture and did their best not to offend there. And most Japanese people I know like Americans. So resent us as occupiers? I don't think so since we are not there as occupiers any more.

Angry at the few incidents that have occurred? Absolutely. They should be.

We WERE occupiers there and in Germany in the years following WWII after both surrendered unconditionally. And we maintained 100% control in both countries until both countries had revamped their governments to something that was not threatening to their neighbors or a danger to world peace. And both countries became friends and allies of the USA and most allied nations thereafter and positive influences in the world. That's what happens when the good guys win and aren't shy about capitalizing on their victories. It never happens when we stop short of unconditional victory.

Since part of the agreements made then were that the U.S. would maintain a presence in both countries, not as occupiers but as part of those countries self defense mechanisms--we didn't allow them to have much of that of their own--we have had bases in both countries since then even after we returned full autonomy to the respective new governments. And it has been a good deal for all concerned.

The Japanese have been in negotiations with the U.S. recently to reduce the U.S. presence in Okinawa somewhat as most of our presence in Japan is on that one island, but they have not requested that the U.S.leave. They know it is to their strong advantage for us to be there. The last I read, it does not look likely that there will be an significant change in the current arrangements, however.

I have not been keeping track of the number of rapes committed by US servicemen, but I do know I've been reading stories about it for 30 years or more.

If my country had been nuked as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and those who did the nuking still had a military presence in my country 60 years later, I would resent it. That's just me, but I suspect a number of Japanese people feel the same way.

Legitimate victors or not, good intentions assumed or not, someday it's time for the victors to go home.

As a US taxpayer, I resent the $ spent on maintaining US bases all over the world. Are We Rome? In many ways we are.

 

[sanman]

The honeymoon is on between Philippines and China:

Rodrigo Duterte?s China Overtures Appear to Bear Fruit in South China Sea - WSJ

Firm that built islands gets Philippines deal

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have not been keeping track of the number of rapes committed by US servicemen, but I do know I've been reading stories about it for 30 years or more.

If my country had been nuked as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and those who did the nuking still had a military presence in my country 60 years later, I would resent it. That's just me, but I suspect a number of Japanese people feel the same way.

Legitimate victors or not, good intentions assumed or not, someday it's time for the victors to go home.

As a US taxpayer, I resent the $ spent on maintaining US bases all over the world. Are We Rome? In many ways we are.

Yes, as a Libertarian I would expect that to be your point of view. I am 'libertarian' little "L" though and take a somewhat more pragmatic view. I can see how our presence in Japan is as advantageous for us as it is for them. The fact they are not requesting that we leave Japan is evidence that they see it the same way.

I am one of those folks who sees a show of strength as far preferable to war.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, as a Libertarian I would expect that to be your point of view. I am 'libertarian' little "L" though and take a somewhat more pragmatic view. I can see how our presence in Japan is as advantageous for us as it is for them. The fact they are not requesting that we leave Japan is evidence that they see it the same way.

I am one of those folks who sees a show of strength as far preferable to war.

Just to show you how small the 'l' is in describing my libertarian bent, I just voted early here in Florida for the other woman, Jill Stein. I'm all for a woman as POTUS, but not Hitlery.

That the Japanese Government does not ask us to leave DOES NOT MEAN that the rank and file citizen feels the same way. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I've never been to Japan and do not know or care how they feel on the subject.

But claiming that what any government does or does not do represents how the people feel on any given subject, is like saying that because the US government practices torture means that the US citizens approve of it.

Wait, I think I'm on very thin ice with that statement.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not originally, and certainly not in the case of Japan originally either. We can do two things at once.





Again, in comparison to what it is now, realistically speaking it was pacified. Not being perfect myself, I find demanding perfection in other things unrealistic.





It does, if you ignore the fact that we did. Bear in mind that the current administration declared Iraq relatively peaceful upon the occasion of our withdrawal. For political reasons, they failed to understand that the notion that Iraq was relatively peaceful was enforced by the presence of US troops. Perhaps they just didn't care.

No, we're in Japan because of China rather than Russia.
And the Japanese aren't setting off IEDs either.

Perhaps they just didn't care, or maybe they decided that a decade into a six month or less war was having invested enough blood and treasure.

Bottom line: We should never have gone there in the first place. Blame who you will, D or R, it doesn't matter. You can't blame the libertarian platform of using the military for defense rather than for offense.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just to show you how small the 'l' is in describing my libertarian bent, I just voted early here in Florida for the other woman, Jill Stein. I'm all for a woman as POTUS, but not Hitlery.

That the Japanese Government does not ask us to leave DOES NOT MEAN that the rank and file citizen feels the same way. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I've never been to Japan and do not know or care how they feel on the subject.

But claiming that what any government does or does not do represents how the people feel on any given subject, is like saying that because the US government practices torture means that the US citizens approve of it.

Wait, I think I'm on very thin ice with that statement.

If you voted for Jill Stein, I think you have no libertarian blood in you at all whether with a capital "L" or a little "l"

And yes. It is the people of Okinawa who are doing most of the protest against U.S. military presence there, and with some justification due to actions of American servicemen. And I have no doubt that the infrequent incidents of wrong doing get a lot of media attention there while the thousands of American servicemen who respect and follow all Japanese laws get little credit. It is because of public opinion by the people of Okinawa that the Japanese leadership has entered into discussions of reducing our presence on Okinawa, not elsewhere in Japan. But the last I read, nothing is likely to come of it as it would be too costly to start moving our infrastructure around. Again we are more benefit than a problem to Japan.

 

[humbolt]

No, we're in Japan because of China rather than Russia.
And the Japanese aren't setting off IEDs either.

The point, which you keep side stepping, is that we occupied those countries for a rather extended period of time, and still maintain a presence there.

Perhaps they just didn't care, or maybe they decided that a decade into a six month or less war was having invested enough blood and treasure.

Perhaps, and possibly it was nearly entirely politically motivated.

Bottom line: We should never have gone there in the first place. Blame who you will, D or R, it doesn't matter. You can't blame the libertarian platform of using the military for defense rather than for offense.

We had legitimate reasons to go into Iraq. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter. And I don't blame the libertarians for anything in particular, and certainly not Iraq. I'm surprised that many libertarians care about Iraq at all.

In any case, you could ask yourself if you actually believe that ISIS would be in Iraq today had we maintained the 10,000 troops we had there before Obama pulled them out. Realize that when we left as precipitously as we did, not only did we lose any military presence, we also lost a vast amount of continuing intelligence.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The point, which you keep side stepping, is that we occupied those countries for a rather extended period of time, and still maintain a presence there.



Perhaps, and possibly it was nearly entirely politically motivated.



We had legitimate reasons to go into Iraq. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter. And I don't blame the libertarians for anything in particular, and certainly not Iraq. I'm surprised that many libertarians care about Iraq at all.

In any case, you could ask yourself if you actually believe that ISIS would be in Iraq today had we maintained the 10,000 troops we had there before Obama pulled them out. Realize that when we left as precipitously as we did, not only did we lose any military presence, we also lost a vast amount of continuing intelligence.

ISIS would not be in Iraq today had we simply stayed out of it.

You can go on about how it's Obama's fault and not Bush's fault all you want. The bottom line is that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. You can point out that the Democrats were in favor of war, or at least some of them were. I don't care about that. Both major parties are full of crap anyway. Blame who you will. The fact of the matter is that the war should never have happened and was mismanaged from the start. The libertarian platform has it right: The military is for defense, and not to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world. The sooner we learn that lesson, the better. Neither the Tweedledeeblicans nor the Tweedledumocrats seem to have learned that lesson.

 

[humbolt]

ISIS would not be in Iraq today had we simply stayed out of it.

That sounds good, but it's simply not possible to know that.

You can go on about how it's Obama's fault and not Bush's fault all you want. The bottom line is that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. You can point out that the Democrats were in favor of war, or at least some of them were. I don't care about that. Both major parties are full of crap anyway. Blame who you will. The fact of the matter is that the war should never have happened and was mismanaged from the start. The libertarian platform has it right: The military is for defense, and not to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world. The sooner we learn that lesson, the better. Neither the Tweedledeeblicans nor the Tweedledumocrats seem to have learned that lesson.

I understand the libertarian viewpoint on this subject. One of my beef's with libertarianism is foreign policy - I don't think you actually have one. I can offer an alternative explanation of why invading Iraq was a proper action, and it has nothing whatever to do with Pax Americana. The view doesn't entirely square with all of the driving forces behind W's decision, but there's far more correspondence than not.

I agree that the Bush administration mishandled the occupation of Iraq, most especially at the beginning. Rumsfeld, Brammer, et.al. made some serious mistakes in my view. I also think the public pressure here to draw down quickly was a mistaken view, and I do in part place the blame for that at the feet of the Bush administration. The expectations of an extended occupation were never completely realized by the Bush administration, and they therefore weren't conveyed to the public.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, sure. Keep repeating that one, and it will still be BS.

Bush handed over a victory in 2009.

 

[Thoreau72]

If you voted for Jill Stein, I think you have no libertarian blood in you at all whether with a capital "L" or a little "l"

And yes. It is the people of Okinawa who are doing most of the protest against U.S. military presence there, and with some justification due to actions of American servicemen. And I have no doubt that the infrequent incidents of wrong doing get a lot of media attention there while the thousands of American servicemen who respect and follow all Japanese laws get little credit. It is because of public opinion by the people of Okinawa that the Japanese leadership has entered into discussions of reducing our presence on Okinawa, not elsewhere in Japan. But the last I read, nothing is likely to come of it as it would be too costly to start moving our infrastructure around. Again we are more benefit than a problem to Japan.

I agree mostly, but would wonder if the US presence in Japan is a benefit to that country, then how might our country benefit from having a foreign military presence? Does that mean that any country would benefit from the presence of a foreign military?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree mostly, but would wonder if the US presence in Japan is a benefit to that country, then how might our country benefit from having a foreign military presence? Does that mean that any country would benefit from the presence of a foreign military?

You have to look at the proximity of Japan to Korea. North Korea is run by a madman who commands a much stronger military than Japan does, or is allowed to have via our still in place WWII mandates. It is to our advantage that Japan, one of our strongest and most reliable allies, not be seen as a threat to their more belligerent neighbors, and it is important that North Korea knows that retaliation will be swift and certain and absolute if they make any move on our allies. Our presence in Japan makes that a reality.

The best deterrent to war is the certain ability to win one--peace through strength is not just a slogan. It is a necessity if we wish to avoid war.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Bush handed over a victory in 2009.

Than you for that. I'll go put some on my garden now.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That sounds good, but it's simply not possible to know that.

I suppose there is some remote possibility that ISIS might have been in Iraq had we just stayed home, but the indisputable fact is that it wasn't there before the invasion, and neither was AlQaeda.

I understand the libertarian viewpoint on this subject. One of my beef's with libertarianism is foreign policy - I don't think you actually have one. I can offer an alternative explanation of why invading Iraq was a proper action, and it has nothing whatever to do with Pax Americana. The view doesn't entirely square with all of the driving forces behind W's decision, but there's far more correspondence than not.

I agree that the Bush administration mishandled the occupation of Iraq, most especially at the beginning. Rumsfeld, Brammer, et.al. made some serious mistakes in my view. I also think the public pressure here to draw down quickly was a mistaken view, and I do in part place the blame for that at the feet of the Bush administration. The expectations of an extended occupation were never completely realized by the Bush administration, and they therefore weren't conveyed to the public.

The foreign policy platform is that the military is to be used for defense, and not to try to spread democracy or win hearts and minds, or any of the other nonsense that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives over the years.

I agree that the war was mis managed from the start, that the public was led to believe that there would be a quick victory, which was impossible. McCain had it right when he said we'd have to be there for 100 years to keep the peace. The problem is, the American public was not ready to see flag draped coffins and soldiers missing limbs due to insurgent attacks for the next century.

There's lots of blame to go around in the debacle that was Iraq, but there is a lesson to be learned from it too, if only our leaders are listening.

 

[humbolt]

I suppose there is some remote possibility that ISIS might have been in Iraq had we just stayed home, but the indisputable fact is that it wasn't there before the invasion, and neither was AlQaeda.

Very true. The possibility exists, given that AlQaeda was here and there in various countries, that we preferred to fight them in a single location as much as possible.

The foreign policy platform is that the military is to be used for defense, and not to try to spread democracy or win hearts and minds, or any of the other nonsense that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives over the years.

I agree that the war was mis managed from the start, that the public was led to believe that there would be a quick victory, which was impossible. McCain had it right when he said we'd have to be there for 100 years to keep the peace. The problem is, the American public was not ready to see flag draped coffins and soldiers missing limbs due to insurgent attacks for the next century.

There's lots of blame to go around in the debacle that was Iraq, but there is a lesson to be learned from it too, if only our leaders are listening.

I have no dispute with this, except to note that we sometimes have to act in a proactive fashion in order to protect the nation. That would involve defending free passage in the South China Sea. There are other examples.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I suppose there is some remote possibility that ISIS might have been in Iraq had we just stayed home, but the indisputable fact is that it wasn't there before the invasion, and neither was AlQaeda.



The foreign policy platform is that the military is to be used for defense, and not to try to spread democracy or win hearts and minds, or any of the other nonsense that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives over the years.

I agree that the war was mis managed from the start, that the public was led to believe that there would be a quick victory, which was impossible. McCain had it right when he said we'd have to be there for 100 years to keep the peace. The problem is, the American public was not ready to see flag draped coffins and soldiers missing limbs due to insurgent attacks for the next century.

Now for the real killer. I railed against the Bush regime for eight years, although I liked Bush the man. Now, from my viewpoint he was hundreds of times more trustworthy than both of the current candidates put together.

There's lots of blame to go around in the debacle that was Iraq, but there is a lesson to be learned from it too, if only our leaders are listening.

Excellent post! That summarizes that foolish episode in American history perfectly.

I also remember being in the US as the war drums were beating. I met no one who wasn't hell bent on "getting Saddam", and said so. I also recall reading an excellent piece written for the Toronto Globe and published in the New York Times by a Lebanese Canadian journalist who presented a perfect case for NOT invading, his best argument being as brutal as he was, Sadam still had terrorists fearing him.

I too recall the White House persistently arguing it would be a "temporary incursion" despite world renowned militarists giving a list of very reasoned arguments why such an incursion would fail.

But my point it, I never heard one American object when the troops when in. It was only after when the predictions were obviously true, and Americans began to realize the 'deck of cards' anti-terror list was a joke.

 

[Tigerace117]

I have not been keeping track of the number of rapes committed by US servicemen, but I do know I've been reading stories about it for 30 years or more.

If my country had been nuked as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and those who did the nuking still had a military presence in my country 60 years later, I would resent it. That's just me, but I suspect a number of Japanese people feel the same way.

Legitimate victors or not, good intentions assumed or not, someday it's time for the victors to go home.

As a US taxpayer, I resent the $ spent on maintaining US bases all over the world. Are We Rome? In many ways we are.

From what I've read, they really don't. They see the Imperial Japanese period of World War Two as a sort of period of collective national insanity--- similarly to the Germans. And seeing as the Japanese government and people support keeping US troops in the country....

And while I'm sure the North Koreans and Chinese are all too eager for Americans to go home so they can take their pound of blood for World War Two.....we aren't going to.

The nuclear weapons saved millions of lives. The projected death tolls for Operation Downfall were huge. By forcing them to surrender we not only saved the lives of our servicemen, but also millions of Japanese civillians who would have been conscripted and hurled at the invasion forces with nothing more than spears.

 

[Tigerace117]

Just to show you how small the 'l' is in describing my libertarian bent, I just voted early here in Florida for the other woman, Jill Stein. I'm all for a woman as POTUS, but not Hitlery.

That the Japanese Government does not ask us to leave DOES NOT MEAN that the rank and file citizen feels the same way. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I've never been to Japan and do not know or care how they feel on the subject.

But claiming that what any government does or does not do represents how the people feel on any given subject, is like saying that because the US government practices torture means that the US citizens approve of it.

Wait, I think I'm on very thin ice with that statement.

That's a very arrogant statement, T-72. I'm not suprised, though, that you don't really care about what the Japanese people feel about us helping them. All you seem to care about is your own preconceptions. Typical.

 

[Jack Hays]

Than you for that. I'll go put some on my garden now.

Joe Biden noted the victory during the (premature) US troop pullout in 2011. That pullout is the source of current trouble.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Very true. The possibility exists, given that AlQaeda was here and there in various countries, that we preferred to fight them in a single location as much as possible.





I have no dispute with this, except to note that we sometimes have to act in a proactive fashion in order to protect the nation. That would involve defending free passage in the South China Sea. There are other examples.

So we chose to fight them where they were not.
I suppose there are a few examples Iraq was not one of them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Joe Biden noted the victory during the (premature) US troop pullout in 2011. That pullout is the source of current trouble.

Well, if Joe Biden said it, it must be true.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, if Joe Biden said it, it must be true.

Just saying no one disputed the victory until BHO's foolishness required a search for a diversionary scapegoat. In fact, Obama threw away Bush's victory.