Amazon.com Widgets

U.S. returning Okinawa land to Japan: Should Japan have to pay for this land?

  • Yes, the US seizes it, the US owns it.

    Take colonial Britain for example. The British were notorious for taking over islands militarily, but nobody argued they should give the land back. They had the power, they won, they took it over, it's THEIR land. The same argument applies here. We had the power to take it over, so we did. It was a war, so we took it over fair and square. We won the war, so now its OUR land. Case Closed. To all the 'NO' arguers here, we did not steal the land. We took it over, fair and square during war. If the Japanese wanted it, they would have to pay. Imagine you and a friend were betting on his car, which both of you agree on the beat. You win, you take the car. You can't just ask for it back, without compensation. The same case happened here. Japan was in on the war, the islands were at stake.

  • Pro, the US did not seize the land as if they "stole a car".

    In war, there is no such thing as stealing. If I am stronger than you, and I take your city because you run away besides defending it, then it is mine because you surrendered it or I fought long and hard enough for you to change your mind about any defense. When you steal a car, you steal it without the victim knowing or getting caught. If you knew that your car was being stolen, then you would defend yourself, if you didn't know, found out later, and did not attempt to get your property back, then it is your fault for losing a car. In the same way, if Japan did not try to get the island back after WW2, then it belongs to the US, because Japan did not see the benefit and good of taking it back. Then the US has full right to do whatever they want with it.

  • Japan has already paid for it.

    Japan lost the war, surrendered, and the Americans were then planted in Okinawa; while it is not a written contractual term in the Peace Treaty with Japan, the establishment of a US military base in Okinawa, was something then-weak, financially gouged just-Post-war Japan submitted to as a kind of additional reparation- I believe it is so that the US can more closely monitor, to the extent of even interfering with, Japan's recovery, and also to use Okinawa as a base of operations for future relations with Asia-, to the superior country, the then-US, in the form of explicit showing of compliance and subjugation- culturally, the Japanese are wont to show deference to those who have demonstrated superiority over them, while also of cultural immersion, their show of contrition and remorse for fear of further reprisal; something the Americans sure did good with Little Boy and Fat Man. Also, after ravaged by war, it is only natural that Japan would like the world's greatest country to serve as a deterrent, lest the many enemies it has made over the years attack it at its most vulnerable time, for instance, Russia.

    So, seeing as how ever since the establishment of the US base in Okinawa that most of the fundamental reasons, from both sides, have been satisfied over the course of decades, it seems egregious for Japan to have to pay America for what was a quid-pro-quo relationship- arguably, America got the better end of the bargain. So, it would just be bullying if Japan had to pay for what was then-America taking advantage of Japan's post-war condition and of their victory.

    On a side note, America would be a losing a strategic military position and presence in the part of the world where North Korea and China are, so it makes sense for the US to ask for payment, though it doesn't make it right- it's in US interest to stay in Okinawa, not the Japanese (since they are going to be amassing their own military might for now on).

  • It was always theirs

    While the land was seized by the US, it was originally their land. As many had said earlier, of I was to steal your car, why would you have to pay???? Not very sensible. Japan was hurt greatly by the war and the US should help it heal, not hurt it.

  • Japan shouldn't have to buy back land they lost to America

    My grandpa was actually there during the Korean War, he was just there to manage cargo but, the land he was at was under American control, when the Japanese had original control and influence on that land. So America doesn't have the right for Japan to pay for something we took over.

  • Yes, the US seizes it, the US owns it.

    Take colonial Britain for example. The British were notorious for taking over islands militarily, but nobody argued they should give the land back. They had the power, they won, they took it over, it's THEIR land. The same argument applies here. We had the power to take it over, so we did. It was a war, so we took it over fair and square. We won the war, so now its OUR land. Case Closed. To all the 'NO' arguers here, we did not steal the land. We took it over, fair and square during war. If the Japanese wanted it, they would have to pay. Imagine you and a friend were betting on his car, which both of you agree on the beat. You win, you take the car. You can't just ask for it back, without compensation. The same case happened here. Japan was in on the war, the islands were at stake.

  • No, Japan should not have to pay since the land was seized militarily.

    The islands in question were taken from the Japanese by the US Military during World War Two. During the war, atrocities were committed by the Japanese military; however, the US also used nuclear weapons on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By attempting to argue that Japan should pay for the land, this implies that the US is the rightful owner of this land. Also, the US Military has made use of this land since 1945 in multiple conflicts as well as general defense of the region against the rise of communism in the region. The land has paid for itself, and therefore the US should not add insult to injury by making the Japanese pay for the land. Many generations have passed since WWII, and this payment would be far separated from the time when it would have had a moral impact on the situation.

  • No, Japan should not have to pay the United States to regain control of Okinawan land.

    No, Japan should not have to pay the United States to regain control of Okinawan land. The war in which the United States gained control of this land on Okinawa was many decades ago. We should move on and let the Japanese take control of this land and put it in control of its citizens.

  • Japan should not have to pay for the land.

    If this was their land to begin with, they shouldn't have to pay to get it back. This is very similar to the land that was taken from the Native Americans long ago.
    If someone steals your car, should you have to pay to get it back? Sounds a little ridiculous.

  • It was theirs in the first place.

    There is no reason to rub salt in the wound and make Japan pay for the land. The United States should be willing to bury the hatchet and restore relations to Japan with a gesture of good will. Japan was devastated after the war and the United States should help Japan continue to rebuild.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.