If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Al Jazeera)   It turns out Japan is now getting around its constitutional ban on a navy by calling their new ship part of a "self-defense force with serving members." What could possibly go wrong?   (aljazeera.com) divider line 156
    More: Scary, Japan, Sea of Japan, particle displacement, flight suit, Shinzo Abe, Liberal Democratic Party, elephants, navies  
•       •       •

8054 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 10:06:29 AM
zer0c0ntext.files.wordpress.com
funny-pictures-blog.com
xspblog.com
global3.memecdn.com
browntweedsociety.files.wordpress.com
funny-pictures-blog.com
global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-06-14 10:10:16 AM

James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.


agreed
 
2013-06-14 10:13:08 AM

Millennium: Satanic_Hamster: Subby; you realize they've been doing this for... What, 60 years?

Yeah, I was going to say; this is not new at all.

James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point. It's been 70 years.

At this point, it's not really "our" place to say. What keeps Japan from having a military is not a treaty, but its own constitution; we wrote it, back in the day, but it's theirs to amend. The topic comes up from time to time, but it always gets defeated.




As long as we can still blame all white people for slavery.
 
2013-06-14 10:13:47 AM

doglover: dittybopper: /I thought Japan already had a professional Navy.

They do. Ours.

They've also got the SDF, which is just an ordinary military with a different name.


but they're really set up to defend from giant ants more than anything.
www.oxmonline.com

Oh wait.. EDF  ? never mind.
 
2013-06-14 10:14:49 AM
Good, we may need the help, if nothing else they will make a good buffer vs chicoms
 
2013-06-14 10:16:07 AM
www.wtfcostumes.com

Their serving members will use their magnets to pull enemy ships into their fleet.
 
2013-06-14 10:17:02 AM

silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.


This might be the reason China could have an issue with it.
 
2013-06-14 10:18:50 AM

verbaltoxin: silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.

This might be the reason China could have an issue with it.


Fark chucked my link.

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/13/the-rape-of-nanking-a-summ ar y/
 
2013-06-14 10:19:18 AM
I'm more surprised an Al-Jazeera article was greenlit to be honest.
 
2013-06-14 10:19:38 AM
We've have land, air and sea military forces since the occupation ended, they're just called "self-defense forces". Japan has one of the world's biggest military budgets, and has for many years (currently #5 behind US, China, Russia and UK).

America has been pushing for Japan to revise the constitution and overturn article 9 (the 'no military beyond self-defense' bit) since the Korean War. Once they were certain Japan was firmly on their side, they wanted as many guns as possible pointed at the Commies. Some of the loudest biatching about it came during the first Gulf War: 'our boys are laying down their lives, why do the Japs (and the Krauts) think they can just get off with writing a check?" Uhh, because our constitution forbids us from doing any more. You wrote it, remember?

Did my eyes deceive me, or was China claiming to be concerned by our military aggression? What's the hanzi for 'chutzpah'?
 
2013-06-14 10:23:33 AM

qorkfiend: silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.

Sure, if by "weren't required to give up their military" you mean the Wermacht was disbanded by the Allied occupation forces. Both East and West Germany had no military until 1955, one year after the Japanese officially created the SDF.


The other thing to consider is that the regular German military forces fought a much "cleaner" war than the regular military forces of Imperial Japan.
 
2013-06-14 10:24:04 AM

Lundah: Yes, yes, and the reunification of Germany was supposed to bring about the second-coming of Hitler, remember?


You are confusing German reunification with Brazil.
 
2013-06-14 10:31:22 AM
Heh.

There is a pretty big movement in the Japanese Government right now to do away with the SDF and make the military a full fledged, well, military. The Defense Minster supports this and there's a good chance he will be the next PM. It's a move that's gaining some serious public traction with the NoRKs getting all squirrelly and China becoming a bigger player in the region.

There's a underlying current amongst the SDF and the Government that Japan needs a military in order to keep pace with China for influence in East Asia. The SDF is well trained and very well equipped. Serving in the SDF is no longer the stigma is once was either. If they wanted too, Japan could very easily have a nuclear armed force inside of five years.

The US is encouraging this as well because the SDF is one of the few forces in the world that meets or exceeds US standard.

One of my students was a contractor with the SDF for a long time; he has some really interesting stories. And yes, many of the top commanders are the sons of IJA and IJN Admirals and Generals, how did you know?

The real SDF would probably build a Mecha Godzilla to fight off real Godzilla. They're pretty badass, actually.
 
2013-06-14 10:34:22 AM

qorkfiend: silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.

Sure, if by "weren't required to give up their military" you mean the Wermacht was disbanded by the Allied occupation forces. Both East and West Germany had no military until 1955, one year after the Japanese officially created the SDF.


But did the US pound it into the German constitution that they were forbidden from having a military?  They did to the Japanese.   The SDF is a self defense force.  It would cause a constitutional crisis for Japan to use the SDF offensively.
 
2013-06-14 10:38:09 AM

gnosis301: Please build the Yamato. I want to see a giant laser before I die.


They already built the Yamato. You're referring to accessorizing the Yamato.
 
2013-06-14 10:46:18 AM

WelldeadLink: gnosis301: Please build the Yamato. I want to see a giant laser before I die.

They already built the Yamato. You're referring to accessorizing the Yamato.


I'd be more impressed if they raised and rebuilt into a space battleship the IJN Clamato.
 
2013-06-14 10:48:29 AM
Can they get around the constitutional ban on non-blurry porn?
 
2013-06-14 10:50:10 AM

verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.

This might be the reason China could have an issue with it.

Fark chucked my link.

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/13/the-rape-of-nanking-a-summ ar y/


China  killed more of their own people than Japan did, and at this moment is a much larger threat to regional security. Anti-Japanese sentiments at this point are just a political tool for the Chinese leadership to divert attention away from themselves.
 
2013-06-14 10:57:57 AM
Good. WWII is over. I'm tired of paying for Japan's national defense. Let their own tax payers keep them save from invasion. And let's get out of Germany and 20 other stable democracies while we're at it.
 
2013-06-14 11:00:01 AM

lostcat: I really don't blame them for wanting a stronger military.


dittybopper: and they'll make a nice naval counter-weight to China.



Looks like we're doing just fine in this thread.

Given the sheer number of regional conflicts in those seas, I can certainly understand why they'd want to have some muscle.
 
2013-06-14 11:03:49 AM

utah dude: uh... why do we have aljazeera links up on fark? is drew trying to get himself on a list?


It's al-Jazeera English, not the Al-Qaeda Book of the Month Club. Their news reporting is generally more trustworthy and "fair and balanced" than the MSM in the US.
 
2013-06-14 11:05:29 AM
Rather than "destroyer" designating it as something like a coast guard cutter with a flat top able to launch helicopters for search and rescue / contraband interdiction would seem to be more truthful? I imagine that's largely it's intended day to day use?
 
2013-06-14 11:06:38 AM

Mr. Cat Poop: Can they get around the constitutional ban on non-blurry porn?


The non-blurry stuff is available, but it is more expensive, so you really have to have a yen for it.
 
2013-06-14 11:09:28 AM
Maybe this time around Japan shouldn't paint targets on their ships:
www.combinedfleet.com
 
2013-06-14 11:10:41 AM
Well it's about time. I remember seeing a doc on the SDF and I was rather impressed by it. I never thought it was that big. I remember during the first Gulf war when Japan wanted to send minesweepers to the gulf to help clear the mines, but that caused a big debate. I think they did end up sending them though.
 
2013-06-14 11:10:47 AM
"Anywhere else, the Hyuga would be classed as a "light aircraft carrier", but because of sensitivities over the constitution, Japan's government has designated it a "destroyer".

Am I the only one who loves the crazy political hoops some countries have gone to in order to avoid calling a spade a spade?  I mean the Soviets had the Moskva class "ASW Cruisers" which were really chopper carriers, and then the Kiev class which I think were also called cruisers, despite having full flight decks for VSTOL aircraft.

Then of course, lets not even begin to look at the brazen lie that the RN pulled on it's own government to avoid the unpopular term aircraft carrier when they built the Invincible... "through deck cruiser"   riiiight.

Anyways, just rambling, don't mind me.
 
2013-06-14 11:17:31 AM
Call me when it transforms into a robot. Rick hunter will probably be the pilot.
 
2013-06-14 11:21:42 AM
20-year-old news is old.

I sailed with Japanese MSDF ships during exercises in the 90's, ffs.
 
2013-06-14 11:31:52 AM

DrunkWithImpotence: "Anywhere else, the Hyuga would be classed as a "light aircraft carrier", but because of sensitivities over the constitution, Japan's government has designated it a "destroyer".

Am I the only one who loves the crazy political hoops some countries have gone to in order to avoid calling a spade a spade?  I mean the Soviets had the Moskva class "ASW Cruisers" which were really chopper carriers, and then the Kiev class which I think were also called cruisers, despite having full flight decks for VSTOL aircraft.

Then of course, lets not even begin to look at the brazen lie that the RN pulled on it's own government to avoid the unpopular term aircraft carrier when they built the Invincible... "through deck cruiser"   riiiight.

Anyways, just rambling, don't mind me.


Before WW2 they broke the Washington Naval treaty a lot by fudging the numbers and jsut outright lying about they weights and types of ships they had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
 
2013-06-14 11:33:36 AM
My penis is a secret weapon of love.


/idk all i got
 
2013-06-14 11:33:42 AM
img69.imageshack.us
Anywhere else, the Hyuga would be classed as a "light aircraft carrier",  but because of sensitivities over the constitution, Japan's government has designated it a "destroyer".
 
2013-06-14 11:36:55 AM
They'd better hurry up and bolster some defenses... we have a little under two years before this guy shows up...

www.teamartail.com
 
2013-06-14 11:45:45 AM

dittybopper: Probably not much.  The nationalism that blinded them in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's doesn't seem to be too much in evidence now...


www.iwadai.com

/New, not vintage.
//hot
 
2013-06-14 11:45:56 AM

silverjets: qorkfiend: silverjets: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

You'd think.  But you can bet the Chinese and the Koreans will speak out against this.

When it came to "grievous acts of violence during wartime" I'd say the Germans were on par with the Japanese, if not having surpassed them, but the Germans weren't required to give up their military.

Sure, if by "weren't required to give up their military" you mean the Wermacht was disbanded by the Allied occupation forces. Both East and West Germany had no military until 1955, one year after the Japanese officially created the SDF.

But did the US pound it into the German constitution that they were forbidden from having a military?  They did to the Japanese.   The SDF is a self defense force.  It would cause a constitutional crisis for Japan to use the SDF offensively.


Kind of, the German's crafted their own constitution that forbid a standing army.  I'm sure the us hint hint nudge nudged them, but we didn't outright write their constitution.
 
2013-06-14 11:54:33 AM
Is pleased:
3.bp.blogspot.com

/Better not be obscure.
//It is hot, though.
///Hot like oiled up gay Japanese nationalists.....
 
2013-06-14 11:56:36 AM
As a Chinese, I won't feel OK with until Japan at least formally recognize the war crimes they commited during the WWII. I'm sure most Japanese people are fine, but the number of right wing nutsy in Japan politics is alarming. One recent example being comfort women being a "necessity" in war time. I also understand that most Japanese don't know of things that Japan did during WWII because it's not taught in school or things are heavily prettied over. It's really hard to trust them when many of the ones in power still deny the existence/scale of the Nanking Massacre or comfort women.

Sure China has its issues as well, but that's a separate topic.
 
2013-06-14 12:00:51 PM

woodstock827: As a Chinese, I won't feel OK with until Japan at least formally recognize the war crimes they commited during the WWII. I'm sure most Japanese people are fine, but the number of right wing nutsy in Japan politics is alarming. One recent example being comfort women being a "necessity" in war time. I also understand that most Japanese don't know of things that Japan did during WWII because it's not taught in school or things are heavily prettied over. It's really hard to trust them when many of the ones in power still deny the existence/scale of the Nanking Massacre or comfort women.

Sure China has its issues as well, but that's a separate topic.


Don't hold your breath, Japan doesn't even discuss their involvement in WWII with their own people.
 
2013-06-14 12:14:12 PM

dmars: James!: I think we can trust the Japanese with a military at this point.  It's been 70 years.

Yeah, anyone who is worried about this is probably a paranoid looney


So I see you've never been to Japan.  Horribly racist, nationalist, farked up superiority complex still exists and going strong.  They'd rather just euthanize any half breed children that slip by but we are watching.
 
2013-06-14 12:16:44 PM

utah dude: uh... why do we have aljazeera links up on fark? is drew trying to get himself on a list?


Because it's a better news agency than CNN, MSNBC, and Faux News combined?  That's my guess.
 
2013-06-14 12:23:35 PM

woodstock827: As a Chinese, I won't feel OK with until Japan at least formally recognize the war crimes they commited during the WWII. I'm sure most Japanese people are fine, but the number of right wing nutsy in Japan politics is alarming. One recent example being comfort women being a "necessity" in war time. I also understand that most Japanese don't know of things that Japan did during WWII because it's not taught in school or things are heavily prettied over. It's really hard to trust them when many of the ones in power still deny the existence/scale of the Nanking Massacre or comfort women.

Sure China has its issues as well, but that's a separate topic.


Japan has recognized the war crimes and has apologized multiple times. Sure, once in a while an old geezer in government says something stupid again. Just like there are still some hardcore communists left in the government in China.

But as an Asian you should be able to recognize that the reasons that Japan doesn't admit their mistakes with more effort is exactly the reason why people in China ignore the fact that their grandparents where red guards and murderers.  This is because they share the same cultural background, confucianism, guilt vs. shame etc.

The simple fact is that China wouldn't be where it is today without the billions of aid that Japan paid in reparations. All of the infrastructure that was built in the 80's and early 90's that enabled China to escape from economic obscurity where built with Japanese money.
 
2013-06-14 12:26:18 PM
 Why don't they just change their constitution? What the hell right do we have to tell them after 70 years that they cannot have a military. At this point it's just going to mean WE will have to fight their wars. It's a stupid bureaucratic hold over which has outlived the people who drafted it as well as it's usefulness.
 
2013-06-14 12:28:29 PM
Nothing could go wrong. Japan's military needs to step up its game to counter China because we may not be there to help, same with Taiwan, the Philippines, Singapore, Australia. etc.
 
2013-06-14 12:32:20 PM
We should sell them our carriers for there seamen.
 
2013-06-14 12:33:25 PM

thehobbes: I'm more surprised an Al-Jazeera article was greenlit to be honest.


What? Why?
 
2013-06-14 12:46:40 PM

red5ish: Anywhere else, the Hyuga would be classed as a "light aircraft carrier",  but because of sensitivities over the constitution, Japan's government has designated it a "destroyer".


Another Japanese Destroyer:

www.kaijukits.com

They have an amazing gift for clincally accurate understatement.
 
2013-06-14 12:49:12 PM

HypnozombieX: Why don't they just change their constitution? What the hell right do we have to tell them after 70 years that they cannot have a military. At this point it's just going to mean WE will have to fight their wars. It's a stupid bureaucratic hold over which has outlived the people who drafted it as well as it's usefulness.


Like I said, the topic comes up from time to time in the Japanese legislature. The Japanese Constitution is actually easier to amend than the US Constitution -you need a 2/3 majority in both houses, then a simple majority in a referendum-, but the proposals to do so never seem to get enough votes.

In other words, what right do we have to tell them after 70 years? None whatsoever. But at this point, we're not telling them; they're telling them.
 
2013-06-14 12:49:16 PM

ModernLuddite: Is pleased:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x277]

/Better not be obscure.



"Life is coincidence ruined by sanity."
 
2013-06-14 12:52:09 PM
Congratulations Al-Jazeera, you overreacted to an amphibious assault ship. Calling this gross violation of article 9 is like saying that NZ is warmongering with its air force (only offensive craft are prop driven ASW craft).

If you are talking like the want an air craft carrier fleet ala WWII, I think you are overstating the issue, this isn't the Akagi here. You could put the Harrier, but it is now decades old and frankly sucks with how inefficient its' jump-jet systems are, or better modern planes like the Marine varient of the f-35 if it ever gets completed and delivered.
 
2013-06-14 12:54:36 PM

doglover: dittybopper: /I thought Japan already had a professional Navy.

They do. Ours.

They've also got the SDF, which is just an ordinary military with a different name.


Super Defense Fortress?? Japan has the Macross?
 
2013-06-14 01:04:02 PM
I think it might be time to let them have an offensive military.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report