Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
2022-10-26
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
High praise for maintaining dignity
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
How do future generations view it?
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
Quad's strategy is geopolitically rational; simply dispersing the Chinese military will give it an advantage.
China causing border problems in all directions
Military expenditure is just the total amount
Regional dispersion reduces military strength by half
Chinese encirclement should be strengthened
China has long borders and its strategy should be to engage in peaceful diplomacy with neighboring countries, but for some reason the opposite is true for that country. In that respect, the United States is smart and has formed a North American alliance with Canada and Mexico, and among the countries with which they share borders, I think Russia is the only hostile element.
China is so selfish that it is happy to make enemies in all directions, but Quad is outwitting them. Comparing military expenditures by country is helpful, but it is on a different level from practical ability.
In large countries, military power is dispersed. Will Yunnan's soldiers and tanks be able to participate in the fighting in Fujian? Even if it is counted as military expenditure, it is not a real military force.
If Japan, the United States, and Taiwan cooperate in the event of a Taiwanese emergency, many Chinese forces will head there, but what will happen if the Indian army invades the Kashmir region during that time?Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines will suppress the Spratly Islands. be able to.
South Korea's geographical advantage in the Quad lies in its operations in the Northeast, but Moon Jae-in seems unable to understand this at all. In the event of a Taiwanese emergency, it would be a good idea for countries with border issues with China to close their borders one after another.
Possibility of the world's largest oil field off the coast of Izura, Ibaraki Prefecture - Hope for investigation and mining including security.
It is estimated that there is a huge oil field off the coast of Izura in Ibaraki Prefecture. A slag called carbonate concrete was formed by the bond between calcium and carbon, and the origin of carbon was unclear by research teams at Ibaraki University and Hokkaido University who found that it was natural gas. From the area of ??the reef, the total amount of natural gas ejected from the seabed is estimated, and the fact that natural gas is emitted means that there is a high possibility that oil resources are buried under it. If oil resources are discovered, they will be one of the largest in the world.
There seems to be an opinion that it is cheaper to buy oil from abroad as before because it takes a lot of time and cost from investigation to mining, but as a problem including security before the economic point of view. I want you to proceed with the investigation. In the first place, QUAD is the area where oil tankers pass from the Middle East, and China is trying to control it, and its original purpose is to prevent those movements.
What if oil comes out in Japan? Will the Spratly Islands issue and the Taiwan Strait issue become less important to Japan? No, it wouldn't be. China is cleverly developing oil resource diplomacy, which is a card of further threat to Asian countries. Achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific by QUAD could sell Japanese oil to Asian countries and reduce China's influence on the Spratly Islands relatively. I would like the country to discuss the overall benefits of having resources, not just the perspective of which is cheaper.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
Will increased defense spending enable Japan to create innovations never seen before? - Amendment to Article 9 of the Constitution, revival of the military industry, and technological development.
Aims after constitutional amendment
Japan becomes a military power
The history of weapon development is a history of technological innovation
A world of innovation that cannot be imagined in everyday life
Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution and revive its military industry. As I recall, Congressman Takaichi was the first member of the Diet to speak clearly about this issue. Amendments to Article 9 of the Constitution will expand Japan's military power and increase its defense capabilities, which will greatly reduce the risk of war. My personal opinion from the beginning has been that simply reducing the risk is a failure, and that technological innovation will be born by developing various military technologies in the name of military budgets.
If that happens, there will be countries and people who ridicule Japan's efforts to become a military power and try to get in the way, but it would be better to say clearly, ``Japan will become a military power.'' No engineer is aiming for second or third place in the technological development competition. When it comes to Japanese technology, it is normal to aim for the top in the world. Too many people think that if they developed a weapon, they would be murderers.
What exactly are the bronze tools used for thousands of years BC? It is a weapon and a vessel. What is iron? This is also used as a weapon, agricultural tool, and various decorations. These processing techniques were developed to defeat the enemy in war. Countries that acquired these processing techniques gained supremacy over their regions and acquired cultures such as bronzeware and iron-related crafts.
What exactly is an aircraft? Don't stop thinking just because the Wright Brothers achieved their dream of flying. The development of airplanes progressed with the investment of national funds for use in the war, making them faster, safer, lighter, and larger, and they were put into practical use during World War I. What exactly are passenger planes commonly used today? Grumman and Boeing are in the military industry.
Hitler was passionate about automobile development and invested a large amount of state funds. At that time, automobiles were the pinnacle of industrial technology, and were connected to the drive and performance of military vehicles and tanks. Winning in automobile races increased national prestige. Why are BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Volks still so strong?During this era, Germany won the technological competition.
What are nuclear weapons? A bomb that uses the enormous energy released during nuclear fission. So what is a nuclear power plant? The electricity for the PC I am currently using is also generated by nuclear power.
Is the country that developed the coronavirus vaccine a medical technology powerhouse? Completely different. These are countries that conduct military research into bacterial and viral weapons.
The technology to defeat the enemy in war is a technological innovation for survival that assumes the extraordinary, and has no taboos. Human history has proven that this is a field where innovations and paradigm shifts that cannot occur in everyday life can occur in the sense of achieving a goal using various methods. In other words, Japan should seriously aim to become a military power. This is because, at the same time, unimaginable technological innovations that can be used for peaceful purposes will be born.
