[gomoho]

or should Japan pay the $200 million dollar ransom? Interesting that the low oil prices have put a cash squeeze on ISIS so now they need to raise some funds. Should we attempt a rescue of these two men or tell Japan they are on their own.

[zcaveman]

I haven't read anywhere where Japan has asked for our help. Let Japan work on the deal. They said they would not pay. I don't think it is any of our business at this time.

Z

[zonerboy]

In a word: No.

[philnpat]

I'm betting on Japan handling it on their own.

[kcrazorbackfan]

Not just no, but hell no. Now, finding Jihad John is another thing, but that's hard to do without boots on the ground.

[GatorFan]

Every country needs to work together to defeat all terror groups.

[villagetinker]

Agreed we, the victims of ISIS, need to present a united front to ISIS, so that ISIS understands "united we stand divided we fall", and it is the united world against them.

IMHO

[Mikeod]

Only if we work through Japan. I would not want us to try something unilaterally that screws up what Japan might be working on.

[redwitch]

If it is a UN or a joint international force working together, it would be inexcusable to stand to the side. If japan specifically asks for our help, then, yes, I think we should offer some assistance. Otherwise, no.

[billethkid]

NO!

And just what help could we offer that the Japanese can't do on their own? We certainly do not have a demonstrated track record of expertise in recent similar beheadings/killing threats....

[leftyf]

Again, NO

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by redwitch

If it is a UN or a joint international force working together, it would be inexcusable to stand to the side. If japan specifically asks for our help, then, yes, I think we should offer some assistance. Otherwise, no.

I like the way you think and write.

[gomoho]

Japan's constitution forbids their limited military to do anything outside their country except involvement in a UN peace keeping mission. The idea they may call on us to attempt a rescue has been put out there. Although we have yet to be successful in these particular situations if Japan specifically asks for our assistance should be oblige?

[TrudyM]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Japan's constitution forbids their limited military to do anything outside their country except involvement in a UN peace keeping mission. The idea they may call on us to attempt a rescue has been put out there. Although we have yet to be successful in these particular situations if Japan specifically asks for our assistance should be oblige?

Unless the terms of their surrender are altered so they can legally act then we and those who were party to the treaty are in a tough spot if asked to help. I agree with Redwitch and her appraisal of the situation.

Update - Hubby just told me that the prohibition of a standing army is no longer in effect but that their article 9 of their constitution prohibits it and that the repeal of that item has been opposed for the most part by the Japanese people who are adverse to risking going to war. So as usual my facts are out of date

[Topspinmo]

Beings we are the police of the world and prop up UN and NATO with our tax dollars Yes we are responsible for everything from beginning of time. NOT! now after the apology tour, beings Japan is now an ally if they ask for help then we should respond.
But, I doubt they will ask being we are releasing all the terrorist we caught so they can get back in the fight.