Considering the number of U.S.Marines that died in combat to take the Island after Japan dragged us into WW2, Doesn't it seem like he was disrespecting the U.S.Marines when he did this? Sort of like going to Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune or Camp Pendleton and flipping us the bird.
2007-09-20 16:45:04 · 5 answers · asked by Charles S 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I thank all of you for answering my question. Retired Navy Officer, thank you for your service to our country and excellent, what I presume to be historically accurate answer.
However some of the other answers I recieved were dissapointing. It is a shame that some are more concerned with the relationship we have with a former enemy/present ally than how much respect we show to our U.S.Marines. Maybe we should not "tick off " those who have made numerous sacrifices to preserve our safety and freedom.
2007-09-23 11:49:03 · update #1
I served on Okinawa before and after reversion. In fact I did three tours there. Jimmy Carter was not even the President when Okinawa reverted to Japanese control in 1972. Richard Milhous Nixon was President. The U.S. recognized Japan's "residual sovereignty" over Okinawa and the rest of the Ryukyus Islands in the Eisenhower Administration. That phrase was contained in a note to the Japanese government of the time by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. The same recognition applied to Iwo Jima and the rest of the Bonin Islands (as we called them). The Japanese call them the Ogosawara Islands. The Bonins were turned over in the 1960s.
James Earl Carter III was one of seven commanders-in-chief that I served under. He was, by my measure, the worst of the group. But, he had no role in the reversion of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands.
2007-09-20 16:58:02 · answer #1 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes. For several very good reasons. 1. It was a slap in the face to every military serviceman. 2.Thousands of US soldiers are still entombed there. 3. We now have to ask japan permission to go there to even look for dead or allow veterans to visit. 4.Iwo was turned over as part of giving Okinawa to the Japanese. Before the War Okinawa was a separate country. We gave the country to it s captors. 5. Iwo has strategic value and we deserved to keep that. 6. Carter is and was a clearly damaged thinker who is still going from place to place apologizing for himself and his country and giving away things that belong to other Americans so he can feel better about himself, and Iwo Jima was part of this, just like Giving Iran to the Ayatollahs and giving panama to a narco terrorist.
2015-02-23 06:02:00 · answer #2 · answered by Been 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. He thought he had good political reasons to it, perhaps to curry favor with Japanese leadership.
Also, the folks our ancestors captured and killed on Okinawa are just as gone as our ancestors who died there are, as is the strategic purpose for taking the island gone as well.
Taking an island and giving an island are both strategic decisions made to resolve major specific issues that were pressing at the time of the decision. That's reasonable use of state power.
2007-09-20 17:06:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it was the correct move. Japan is an important ally in East Asia, there's no need to tick them off.
Besides, we have an extremely heavy military presence in Okinawa--we have a huge base there. So if you think about it, we are still there!
2007-09-20 17:15:57 · answer #4 · answered by SMS 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don 't understand why some people are still fighting WWII. We nuked them we
stomped their ***. They did quite a bit of asskicking themselves, but in the end, Japan was in ruins.
Why can't we let it go?
2007-09-20 17:06:25 · answer #5 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋