NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been out of the news circuit for some time, i only heard about the Japanese hostages yesterday. I heard that the Japanese premier has refused to withdraw the troops even after a threat was sent to burn the Japanese civilian hostages alive. I am all for the war on terror and fully support US involvement in Iraq, but, the Japanese should not allow this to happen. The overwhelming majority of the people there seem to be against the Japanese involvement anyway and the Japanese assistance, although appreciated, should not be viewed as significant enough to significantly hamper reconstruction efforts if withdrawn. I fully support any person who wishes to see the Japanese withdraw.

Also, seeing recent events in Spain, and the failed bomb plot that recently took place in Britain (did that have links to the same terrorist organizations that we are dealing with now? I dont remember,) the Japanese are not immune to retaliation against their own home soil. This is, has been, and will be global war, and it has been raging in the shadows for years prior to our invasion of Iraq. Japan is much more vulnerable a target for such an organization than the US is, and they should not provide a good reason for an attack to take place on their people.

Im sure the US government and the military forces deployed there would appreciate all the assistance they can garner, but its their duty to finish the job, and foreign civilians should not suffer because of stubborn foreign governments.

- C*A*C -

its kind of one of those catch 22's. your citizens are going to keep getting killed and your nation will be a target if you go into iraq. but once you withdrawl, your nation will also be a target and your people will die because you will be seen as weak. getting out now is like that time i tried to fix my timing belt, i could either leave my engine half apart, or screw it up even more, but none of the options was going to make my car run.

its kind of one of those catch 22's. your citizens are going to keep getting killed and your nation will be a target if you go into iraq. but once you withdrawl, your nation will also be a target and your people will die because you will be seen as weak. getting out now is like that time i tried to fix my timing belt, i could either leave my engine half apart, or screw it up even more, but none of the options was going to make my car run.

Kind of agree but kind of don't agree (makes sense, hey?). Maybe the only qualm the people holding the Japanese hostages have with Japan is the fact that Japan is in Iraq. If Japan met their demands and withdrew, why should they continue to target Japan? From what I can see, being a 'terrorist' and holding people captive is a dangerous, pain in the arse past time to have so you have to be sufficently motivated to do it. Just a thought I had really

its kind of one of those catch 22's. your citizens are going to keep getting killed and your nation will be a target if you go into iraq. but once you withdrawl, your nation will also be a target and your people will die because you will be seen as weak. getting out now is like that time i tried to fix my timing belt, i could either leave my engine half apart, or screw it up even more, but none of the options was going to make my car run.


catch 22 is also an awesome band!!!

and there wasn't any protest by us Americans to invade Iraq...

catch 22 is my favorite book. the people who hold them hostage might only have qualms with japan's occupation, but now that they bend to hostage takers demands, whats to stop people who dont support japan's alliance with america from taking hostages to end it? will they have to stop eating sushi if peta takes some hostages? its setting a bad precedent if they bow to these demands.

There may be many good arguments for Japan pulling out of Iraq, but I don't see the recent hostage-takings as being one of those. I oppose the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that I support capitulation to terrorists.

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Kind of agree but kind of don't agree (makes sense, hey?). Maybe the only qualm the people holding the Japanese hostages have with Japan is the fact that Japan is in Iraq. If Japan met their demands and withdrew, why should they continue to target Japan? From what I can see, being a 'terrorist' and holding people captive is a dangerous, pain in the arse past time to have so you have to be sufficently motivated to do it. Just a thought I had really

I agree completely. As much destruction as they might have been able to inflict ultimately they are human and have human limits. Japan poses little threat to them and they currently have little logical reason to try and attack Japan (although the same could have been said about the fact that they have begun this so called holy war anyway.) And hostages do tend to cause problems for the captors as well as the victims of the hostage situation. Trusting any one side in such a situation is exceedingly difficult and the consequences of a mistake during a negotiation is horrid.

Perhaps at a later date this will change, but for now Japan has nothing to gain from keeping their forces there.

and there wasn't any protest by us Americans to invade Iraq...

The opinion here was very divided, as you can plainly see. In Japan the vast majority opposed the action.

the people who hold them hostage might only have qualms with japan's occupation, but now that they bend to hostage takers demands, whats to stop people who dont support japan's alliance with america from taking hostages to end it? will they have to stop eating sushi if peta takes some hostages? its setting a bad precedent if they bow to these demands.

Unfortunately, you are correct. If they repeat such an act over and over again it would show that the Japanese government is quite unfit and wont learn from their mistakes. However, caving in once and then standing firm should be the most effective solution. If action against Japan continues then i fully encourage them to modernize their military and join the War Against Terror.

There may be many good arguments for Japan pulling out of Iraq, but I don't see the recent hostage-takings as being one of those. I oppose the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that I support capitulation to terrorists.

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

quit it. Or you WILL be tried for spam

catch 22 is my favorite book. the people who hold them hostage might only have qualms with japan's occupation, but now that they bend to hostage takers demands, whats to stop people who dont support japan's alliance with america from taking hostages to end it? will they have to stop eating sushi if peta takes some hostages? its setting a bad precedent if they bow to these demands.

I don't think the hostage takers have aims that high (ie. destroy the US - Nippon Alliance, sorry, don't know its actual name). China is prehaps the country most concerned with this alliance as they see it as the northern flank of a pincer that the US has designed to keep them in check, the ANZUS Treaty being the southern flank. I don't think China are going to take hostages over it though.

I have to agree, giving into terrorist and hostage situations is a slippery slope, but this should not be used by governments to legitimise pursueing policies which are unpopular at home. The Australian government is doing this now. I think it is in Japans national interests to give into the demands, which most of the Japanese people agree with anyway. I get what you are saying though, it is a tough call.

There may be many good arguments for Japan pulling out of Iraq, but I don't see the recent hostage-takings as being one of those. I oppose the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that I support capitulation to terrorists.

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

quit it. Or you WILL be tried for spam

Quit what? Did you even read my post?

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

He meant your stupid button!

Have they changed the rules? The last time I was on here, it was OK to have a sig?

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

I have to agree, giving into terrorist and hostage situations is a slippery slope, but this should not be used by governments to legitimise pursueing policies which are unpopular at home. The Australian government is doing this now. I think it is in Japans national interests to give into the demands, which most of the Japanese people agree with anyway. I get what you are saying though, it is a tough call.

The risk and price of keeping the forces in Iraq far outpaces that of pulling them out. Although appeasing terrorists provides them with actual power, which they will abuse, there is no reason why giving them this power in small amounts should be completley destructive to the efforts to cripple them. They will take and use what they get.

Ideally, civilians in Iraq should be better protected and in closer proximity to friendly armed forces, possibley being provided protected vechiles and residences, but the US military is currently too busy to do anything of this sort.

catch 22 is my favorite book. the people who hold them hostage might only have qualms with japan's occupation, but now that they bend to hostage takers demands, whats to stop people who dont support japan's alliance with america from taking hostages to end it? will they have to stop eating sushi if peta takes some hostages? its setting a bad precedent if they bow to these demands.

I don't think the hostage takers have aims that high (ie. destroy the US - Nippon Alliance, sorry, don't know its actual name). China is prehaps the country most concerned with this alliance as they see it as the northern flank of a pincer that the US has designed to keep them in check, the ANZUS Treaty being the southern flank. I don't think China are going to take hostages over it though.

I have to agree, giving into terrorist and hostage situations is a slippery slope, but this should not be used by governments to legitimise pursueing policies which are unpopular at home. The Australian government is doing this now. I think it is in Japans national interests to give into the demands, which most of the Japanese people agree with anyway. I get what you are saying though, it is a tough call.

oh, i never meant to insinuate that these hostage takers wanted to take over the world or anything, they are probably just angry teenagers with guns. and japan should get out, but they should wait a while to make it seem like its unrelated to the hostage crisis. then it would seem that their decision is the result of domestic opinions and not blackmail.

The way the government has to look at it is, "If we cave and comply with their demands now, then the terrorist group will know that they can bend us if we ever need to make demands in the future, so we can't show any signs of weakness or we'll pay for it." If the terrorist group knows that they can get the Japanese government to do what it wants if they just threaten some Japanese citizens, then every time they want Japan to do something they'll just commit terrorist actions against the Japanese people.

The way the government has to look at it is, "If we cave and comply with their demands now, then the terrorist group will know that they can bend us if we ever need to make demands in the future, so we can't show any signs of weakness or we'll pay for it." If the terrorist group knows that they can get the Japanese government to do what it wants if they just threaten some Japanese citizens, then every time they want Japan to do something they'll just commit terrorist actions against the Japanese people.

You are correct, however, this is not the certain response to any Japanese caving in, just a very haunting potential response. If that response was to happen it would be in the best interests of the Japanese to take the same hardlining, unyielding approach the US did, however, i fear that Japan may not possess the tactical abilities to do so.

Have they changed the rules? The last time I was on here, it was OK to have a sig?
Not a sig that links to other forums, as far as I know.

Have they changed the rules? The last time I was on here, it was OK to have a sig?
Not a sig that links to other forums, as far as I know.

If one of the mods asks me to get rid of it, I will.

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

The way I see it, Koizumi is screwed either way. He sent troops in against the wishes of his countrymen, and possibly in violation of his country's constitution according to one article I've read, so they're already mad at him. If he lets them stay and die, his people hate him. If he pulls out and gives in, he looks bad and his people will hate him. That's what you get when you follow the US when your country doesn't want you to. It cost Aznar's successor his job, and there's a (remote, I hear) possibility that it may cost Blair his job because his own party may toss him overboard.

catch 22 is my favorite book. the people who hold them hostage might only have qualms with japan's occupation, but now that they bend to hostage takers demands, whats to stop people who dont support japan's alliance with america from taking hostages to end it? will they have to stop eating sushi if peta takes some hostages? its setting a bad precedent if they bow to these demands.

I don't think the hostage takers have aims that high (ie. destroy the US - Nippon Alliance, sorry, don't know its actual name). China is prehaps the country most concerned with this alliance as they see it as the northern flank of a pincer that the US has designed to keep them in check, the ANZUS Treaty being the southern flank. I don't think China are going to take hostages over it though.

I have to agree, giving into terrorist and hostage situations is a slippery slope, but this should not be used by governments to legitimise pursueing policies which are unpopular at home. The Australian government is doing this now. I think it is in Japans national interests to give into the demands, which most of the Japanese people agree with anyway. I get what you are saying though, it is a tough call.

oh, i never meant to insinuate that these hostage takers wanted to take over the world or anything, they are probably just angry teenagers with guns. and japan should get out, but they should wait a while to make it seem like its unrelated to the hostage crisis. then it would seem that their decision is the result of domestic opinions and not blackmail.

I see what you mean there and they probably will. I think the Australian government should bring our troops home before they too get into a similar situation. We have an election this year too, could you imagine the ramifications? But that is cold comfort for the families of the hostages and if the hostages are killed and Japan eventually withdraws, I think you'd hear the "What was the point of that?" question asked allot.

I see what you mean there and they probably will. I think the Australian government should bring our troops home before they too get into a similar situation. We have an election this year too, could you imagine the ramifications? But that is cold comfort for the families of the hostages and if the hostages are killed and Japan eventually withdraws, I think you'd hear the "What was the point of that?" question asked allot.


I think that troops should be pulled out of Iraq only if they are obviously having a negative effect on the reconstruction process. You can't to into a country, topple it's government, destroy its infrastructure and then just say "so long" when things start getting a bit hairy.

Surely no one ever thought that controlling Iraq was going to be easy?

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

I think that troops should be pulled out of Iraq only if they are obviously having a negative effect on the reconstruction process. You can't to into a country, topple it's government, destroy its infrastructure and then just say "so long" when things start getting a bit hairy.

Surely no one ever thought that controlling Iraq was going to be easy?

Rumsfeld did.

Rumsfeld did.

Which probably means that the USA doesn't actually have a plan for coping with the current situation.

Now there's a comforting thought.

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Tom Toles says it better than I can:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmwha040409.gif

Let France replace Japan in Iraq; they want to serve there now.