| magicalfreddiemercury 01.02.2015 09:02 |
After the murder of Kenji Goto, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, "We will never forgive the terrorists. To punish them for this crime, we will unite with the international community." This made me hopeful, but I know nothing about the Japanese military. Does anyone think the international community has a better chance of defeating ISIS now that Japan has signed on? |
| winterspelt 01.02.2015 11:46 |
Nothing will change. Japan have many, bigger problems, like the one with China, problems with their economy, they are trying to be more active in the international scene but they just wont be able to do everything at the same time. Nothing will change and ISIS will keep their BAU. Also, if we believe certain elements from within ISIS and the US government, ISIS is receiving money from both Emirates and the USA. If that's true, nothing will change even if Japan directs all of their resources to fight against ISIS. Also, Japan doesnt have an army, not like most of the countries. After the end of WW2 they signed an agreement to stop trying to have a full army and they just have a "self defense" army, that agreement (which forbids Japan to obtain many important gear.) have a condition: In order to protect Japan, the USA will keep military bases and a huge army in Japan, both as a protection for Japan's safety and to avoid any future japanese invasion. That's why there are lots of US soldiers in japanese soil. |
| brENsKi 01.02.2015 17:06 |
also, don't the post WWII treaties ban Japan (Italy and Germany) from involvement in military action? although i think Italy were planning to recind their agreement round about 2009. i would like to be wrong about this as the ISIS threat needs as many countries as possible united against them |
| winterspelt 01.02.2015 17:32 |
AFAIK Italy cant act alone, but they can push NATO to attack ISIS, but Turkey and the USA (both members of NATO) will not agree on that particular point because of Syria. Japan's policy towards their military is less than 1 year old, they need to invest a lot of money just to update their equipment and even if they update all their gear, they need still face lots of restrictions so they cant get the stuff they need to launch a small attack outside their territory. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.02.2015 08:57 |
So then, I wonder, what Japan can do. I mean, it's admirable and welcoming that they want to join the international community against ISIS, but in what capacity can they help if not militarily? Intelligence, finance, strategics ...? |
| winterspelt 02.02.2015 13:10 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: So then, I wonder, what Japan can do. I mean, it's admirable and welcoming that they want to join the international community against ISIS, but in what capacity can they help if not militarily? Intelligence, finance, strategics ...?I think Japanese help will basically techonology. They may send boots to the ground but they lack the experience dealing with locals from different countries, so I would say they may send a small force which will be sent as observers in NATO and a small operative force to another countries so they get to know how to deal with certain situations before they can provide full support. |
| The Real Wizard 02.02.2015 14:53 |
If we want ISIS to go away, we need to get our troops out of the middle east. After 9/11 the enemy was a few dozen extremists called Al Qaeda. Now the enemy is entire communities of thousands of angry medieval minded people called ISIS who despise the western/civilized way of life. We created them by meddling in affairs that weren't our own. They're not going away, but we can, if we choose to. But of course with the military industrial complex being a variable (read: not variable), this is never, ever going to happen. It is the biggest myth of our time to think we can eliminate terrorism. But we sure can create it. And people still wonder why extremists flew airplanes into buildings in New York. Sigh. |
| Donna13 03.02.2015 12:07 |
link "Why did ISIS execute a second Japanese hostage? Before the beheading of the journalist Kenji Goto, Japan didn’t think that it was even in a fight with the Islamic State. All Japan had done was contribute a couple of hundred million dollars in humanitarian aid to countries fighting ISIS. Then the man who has come to be known as Jihadi John, the executioner with the London accent seen in several of the group’s videos, threatened death to every Japanese person on the planet as he prepared to slaughter Goto. As a result, a political scientist at the University of Tokyo told the Times, “The cruelty of the Islamic State has made Japan see a harsh new reality…. We now realize we face the same dangers as other countries do.” People in Japan are now calling Kenji Goto’s murder their 9/11." |
| The Real Wizard 03.02.2015 19:28 |
Donna13 wrote: All Japan had done was contribute a couple of hundred million dollars in humanitarian aid to countries fighting ISIS.^ this. So the solution is the same - get out of there. There are many places in the world that can be fixed. The middle east isn't one of them. |
| Donna13 04.02.2015 01:23 |
Believe me, I understand your point, RW, but I think it is for humanitarian reasons (and security reasons) that we do have to fight ISIS, wherever they are. They are causing so much suffering, and also the potential is there - I think - for them to become even more destructive in the future depending on if their numbers grow and to which regions they spread. If you read the rest of the New Yorker piece, the writer describes ISIS as a death cult. They don't respond in a reasonable way. Therefore it would be very difficult to predict their reaction to any situation, including the total withdrawal of any Western presence in the Middle East. |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2015 02:29 |
I see your point, but I'm not so sure. When Australia entered the war, an Australian almost got beheaded. When the Japanese started sending aid, a Japanese guy got beheaded. The day after Canada entered the war, a soldier guarding a treasured national monument was killed by a Islamic extremist. The ISIS guys aren't going to kill anyone from Chile, because nobody from Chile has bothered them. Are we seeing the pattern yet? Withdrawing is by far the least of all the evils. You're right, there may be repercussions, but I'd say they'll be less than the repercussions we'll see if we stay there. |
| Costa86 04.02.2015 05:11 |
The Real Wizard wrote: If we want ISIS to go away, we need to get our troops out of the middle east. After 9/11 the enemy was a few dozen extremists called Al Qaeda. Now the enemy is entire communities of thousands of angry medieval minded people called ISIS who despise the western/civilized way of life. We created them by meddling in affairs that weren't our own. They're not going away, but we can, if we choose to. But of course with the military industrial complex being a variable (read: not variable), this is never, ever going to happen. It is the biggest myth of our time to think we can eliminate terrorism. But we sure can create it. And people still wonder why extremists flew airplanes into buildings in New York. Sigh.Good post. And to those saying "oh, but we still have to fight ISIS!" - that's not the point. The point is no matter what faction you defeat, another one will be born. Yes, fight the immediate threat of ISIS, of course. But what can we do to stop inciting these extremist savages from forming new terrorist groups or recruiting new terrorists to existing ones? One idea is to stop poking the lion and invading its territory. Look, the only people who gained anything from the Iraq occupation (invasion) are the rich and powerful, who do everything for a motive, which motive is invariably their own personal gain. They send young soldiers to be killed, with the illusion that they are serving their country honourably. What a load of rubbish. All they do is pocket money and take care of their interests. It's not even just about oil. it's bigger than that. And the result is that now the Arabs (not all of course, but the more fundamentalist ones) hate us, and see the West as the bad guy. They're medieval savages, yes, but we should have let them be. We instigated a lot of this. Yes, even poor Japan, by sending aid. Don't medle in the business of extermist Muslims. Let them be. We need to mind our own goddamn business and concentrate on our own nation, our EU, our peoples, our Commonwealth, our allies - our things. But we the people can't do shit. It's out of our hands, and the people who hold all the power take the decisions for us, while giving us the illusion of having a choice, and of having the information we need to make up an opinion. We make up the 'opinion' which they want us to make up, and we unknowingly follow paths which realise their own agendas. So fuck that puppet Obama, that stooge Cameron, that financial controller Merkel and that womaniser Hollande. They themselves are having their strings pulled. Fighting ISIS, what crap. If they wanted to, the US, the UK or France could nuke all of the Middle East to hell. But it's not in their interest. They caused this. |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2015 10:10 |
Costa86 wrote: So fuck that puppet Obama, that stooge Cameron, that financial controller Merkel and that womaniser Hollande. They themselves are having their strings pulled.But they're just speaking for others. The US military industrial complex is more powerful (and wealthy) than all of them combined. They don't have a choice. Oil, NRA, Wall St, war industry, Israel, etc. - in the US, the lobbyists always get what they want. |
| Costa86 04.02.2015 10:23 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Yes, they do, and every four years the populace just votes for Democracts or Republicans, which is basically voting for the status quo to continue. Nothing will ever change in the US (and consequently in the West) if one of them is in power.Costa86 wrote: So fuck that puppet Obama, that stooge Cameron, that financial controller Merkel and that womaniser Hollande. They themselves are having their strings pulled.But they're just speaking for others. The US military industrial complex is more powerful (and wealthy) than all of them combined. They don't have a choice. Oil, NRA, Wall St, war industry, Israel, etc. - in the US, the lobbyists always get what they want. |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2015 10:31 |
If an independent gets in, they'd just get bought too. Unless that independent is richer than the world's top ten richest people combined. War is a multi-trillion dollar industry. It calls the shots. Many countries have hope of improving, but the US isn't one of them. It's a failing superpower. If the war machine stops, then the hegemony and oligarchy will stop along with it. China will then take over. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. link link ^ let's focus on this stuff instead. These are areas where we can (and are) improving. |
| Costa86 04.02.2015 10:55 |
The Real Wizard wrote: If an independent gets in, they'd just get bought too. Unless that independent is richer than the world's top ten richest people combined. War is a multi-trillion dollar industry. It calls the shots. Many countries have hope of improving, but the US isn't one of them. It's a failing superpower. If the war machine stops, then the hegemony and oligarchy will stop along with it. China will then take over. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. link link ^ let's focus on this stuff instead. These are areas where we can (and are) improving.Good to see some positive news in this sea of gloom, doom and Justin Bieber. |