Forum - View topicINTEREST: Ghibli's Suzuki Opposes Repealing Japan's Anti-War Clause
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
blaizevincent
 Posts: 407 |
|
||
|
I had no idea about Article 9. And i agree with Suzuki here that Japan should protect such a wonderful thing.
|
|||
|
|||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
||
|
To what end would this be a good thing for Japan? What is Abe thinking? Invade North Korea?
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Sun May 12, 2013 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
|||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
||
|
I guess it's nice from a pacifistic point of view, but wasn't it intended as a punitive and controlling measure for uncertain post-war Japan? The major reason Japan gets to enjoy their relative peace is because America onii-chan is charged with protecting them.
Time to rewatch Patlabor 2. |
|||
|
|||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
ScumbagYoshi
 Posts: 140 |
|
||
|
Didn't know about Article 9, but I don't think "proclaiming" Article 9 to the rest of the world really does anything. Even without it, we know Japan's aggression as a military power dropped dramatically after WWII, and most of the complaints that the country receives is on multiple other fronts, primarily cultural and economic, not militarily.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fronzel
Posts: 1906 |
|
||
|
Japan's constitutional pacifism would not be possible without its reliance on a country that doesn't have anything of the sort. It was a preemptive attempt to fit into a post-WWII anti-war world order that everyone expected but never came to be, anyway.
|
|||
|
|||
scineram
 Posts: 371 Location: Green Hell |
|
||
|
If their goal was to come nationbuilding to Hungary, I would support that. Otherwise, no.
|
|||
|
|||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
||
|
Now that's just silly. Why would you want to fight for yourselves when you can have big ole America come and do it for you under current agreements.
That is unless you want to do some preemptive strikes on certain Republics.... |
|||
|
|||
mdo7
 Posts: 6384 Location: Katy, Texas, USA |
|
||
|
I had no idea and wasn't aware that PM Abe wanted to remove article 9 from the constitution. I don't see why they need to remove it, it's not like Japan wants to declare war on another country. But I agreed with Suzuki, I would oppose it too since Japan is fine with the anti-war clause.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dfens
Posts: 462 |
|
||
|
Basically article 9 was set in place that so Japan could never raise a Army against the US or anyone else and start trouble again like during WWII. How could they say no we had the A-bomb and defeated them so they had no choice.
But they needed some sort of Military power so that's why it's called the Self Defense Force, and that's how they got around no army. They needed one or the rest of the world would come knocking at their door and they would be at their mercy so we placed limits on how much men and equipment they are allowed to produce. Why wouldn't we protect them they are a long standing ally now and at least they don't attack us like in other countries. Even if we the US stopping helping them, they are stable enough that the country wouldn't fall into corruption, dictatorships, and civil war. Besides since they are allowed to have a limited military and have the US backing them as a ally they were able to put all that extra money into infrastructure and that's the reason why they are such a prosperous country. Hell they only spend 1 percent of their GDP on their military. In fact we only have one Naval base left that's in Okinawa we had like 3-4 at one time. Many countries would love some pay back and would invade or attack Japan if they could get away with it. So their military is large enough to hold out long enough for the US to mobilize and save the day if it got that bad and they couldn't handle it. Article 9 was a issue a few years ago when a small number of troops went to Iraq in a limited role as peacekeepers. Some viewed it as a violation of the law since it's forbiden for their military to leave the borders of Japan and their role as for protection only. Why Japan wants to repeal it who knows. But it's been over half a century and they no longer pose the global threat they once did. So I don't see Japan stiring up trouble anytime soon. |
|||
|
|||
|
mdo7
Posts: 6384 Location: Katy, Texas, USA |
|
||
Yeah true and Japan is different from what it was pre-WWII. So I don't see Japan desire to wanting to invade another country. |
|||
|
|||
firedragon54738
 Posts: 3113 Location: wisconsin |
|
||
|
Well I see why they want to end it due to North Korea being crazy all the time an they done want a missile hitting them an doing nothing in response. But it just seem they will do something dumb again like invade Canada
|
|||
|
|||
rheiders
 Posts: 1137 Location: Colorful Colorado :) |
|
||
|
I thought most Japanese people were pretty proud of that clause. It seems silly and meaningless to get rid of it, so I'm with Suzuki.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scormio
|
|
||
|
Repealing the anti-war clause isn't about going to war or not, it's trying to show that Japan is an independent nation (aka, not just a quasi-protectorate of the United States like it was for a decade or two after WWII). It's not like the prime minister overnight decided that Japan should be some warkhawk nation.
|
|||
|
ScumbagYoshi
Posts: 140 |
|
||
Not to mention recent tensions with North Korea and China probably contributed to this. Last edited by ScumbagYoshi on Mon May 13, 2013 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group