Just re-read the thread. Like, holy shit, did Loach just get a real SD “warning” or a warning of a possible real SD “warning?”
And for a premature ninja. Gotta watch my ass.
The UN Forces in South Korea are there to prevent North Korea from doing something stupid like a full-on attack. Even with the presence of a vastly superior military opposing them, the DPRK often does something stupid. The latest two instances are the sinking of a ROK navy ship and the bombing of a South Korean island. It’s merely wishful thinking to consider that North Korea would not attack South Korea if the South Korean forces were on their own. Note also that the ROK military itself does not consider itself capable to fend off that threat without UN assistance.
The impression of many Japanese is that all the US troops in Japan do is drinking and raping, so whoring would be a step up. Unfortunately, there have been a very small number of rapes and murders off base, and the Japanese media really play it up. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) tried to get several of the bases moved from Okinawa because of this and also the noise which comes from having allowing cities to grow up around military bases. Fighter jets are not the quietest forms of transportation known to mankind.
With the hawk PM Abe leading the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in victory over the more wishy-washy DPJ expect more tension between Japan and China over the Senkoku / Diaoyu rocks. While no one expects a shooting war, there have already been several times where ships bump each other and fighters get scrambled occasionally.
So far nothing has escalated, but miscommunications can happen. If China attacks, the US is obligated to help Japan. Very small odds, but if it does, then the US military’s day jobs will become very different.
Maybe because it’s late at night for me and I’m not parsing what you’ve written correctly, but it seems to me we’re saying the same thing- that North Korea hasn’t gone on the full out attack of South Korea because of the UN/US forces stationed there.
I don’t like saying it (and I apologize for this bit of a hijack and debate), but no, from a geopolitical standpoint I don’t think we can characterize North Korea as acting stupidly in sinking the Cheonan or shelling the South Korean island. What consequences have they suffered because of it? All any of it ever costs the DPRK is some toothless international condemnation. They get that every day, whether they are killing innocent sailors, shelling innocent civilians, or cloaking ballistic missile tests as peaceful satellite launches.
The payoff, however, is pretty sweet- they get to puff out their chests in front of their own people and thumb their noses at the largest military in the world. They can’t do what they want, of course, but they’ve become masters at figuring out precisely just how far they can go. And all the while, the rest of the world still begs them to come to the peace table to be offered billions in aid. It’s all good for them so long as they don’t set off that tripwire. It’s a dangerous game, but the regime has played it correctly for the last 60 years. That’s not stupidity, that’s diabolical rationality.
It’s cost them the resumption of food aid and tourism from the South, IIRC. Sadly, though, it hasn’t cost them the support of the PRC.
“Very small number of rapes”??? Over one hundred and twenty-seven Japanese females (some only children) have been raped since 1972. I would not call this a small number. And this number is only the amount of women who had the guts to come forward. In a culture like the one in Japan, rape is often covered up. I’m willing to bet that this number only represents a small percentage of the rapes that have taken place in Okinawa. Japanese women are an easy target and the serviceman know that they will only be subject to a trial in a US military court. Whatever sentences these courts are handing out do not appear to be getting the message out that rape is a serious crime. And what do you want the Japanese media to do when a local women is raped? Play it down? Cover it up?
Once a US serviceman is convicted of rape, he should be turned over to the Japanese government and executed.
Japan only has the death penalty for treason and murder.
nvm
Incorrect.
The United States of America and Japan have a treaty called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). One of the provisions of SOFA is that US servicemembers who commit crimes off-base are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration by the Japanese authorities. The Japanese authorities may, at their discretion, relinquish jurisidiction over said servicemembers but it’s not a common thing.
Your belief that US servicememers are not subject to Japanese jurisdiction is easily dismissed by the fact that a number of US servicemembers have actually been arrested by Japanese police, tried by Japanese courts, and incarcerated in Japanese prison.
Just for fun, here is a **PDF link[/pdf] containing the full text of the SOFA between the US and Japan. And here is a non-PDF link to the NATO/US SOFA.
Just do not allow Japanese authorities proper access to these criminals or better yet transfer them back home to the US before their trial in Japan.
From wiki:
The SOFA has become a major political issue following instances of violent crimes allegedly committed by servicemembers.[1] The U.S. has argued that the extraterritoriality granted its military members under the SOFA is necessary to afford them the same rights that exist under the U.S. criminal justice system. Because the SOFA exempts most U.S. military members from Japanese visa and passport laws, past incidents occurred in which U.S. military members were transferred back to the U.S. before facing charges in Japanese courts. Since the 1995 Okinawan rape incident, the U.S. has agreed to favorably consider handing over suspects in serious cases such as rape and murder before they have been charged.[2] But Japanese authorities often cite that they still do not have regular access to question or interrogate U.S. servicemembers, making it difficult for Japanese prosecutors to prepare cases for indictment
After countless rapes by US servicemen since 1972, finally 23 years later (1995) the US military agrees to “favorably consider” (which means not in all cases) turning over the rapists to Japanese authorities.
One cannot “just transfer someone back to the US before a trial.” That may have been in the case in the distant pass. It certainly was not possible when I was stationed there in the 1990s and is not possible now.
That wiki blurb is bull. The issue on turning over suspects to the Japanese authorities is not about turning them over, but rather about when to turn them over. While I was stationed in Japan, the accused servicemember was only turned over when the Japanese prosecutor filed an indictment with the court. Later on, that was changed to the servicemember being turned over immediately upon request, even absent an indictment, in cases involving “serious crimes.”
Addendum: You are now arguing against your earlier assertion, Mangosteen. You asserted that the US servicemember knows he will never be tried in a Japanese court. I have proven that assertion to be incorrect and your post above indicates that you know that assertion to be incorrect.
It seems to me we’re done with this hijack.