The USFG should substantially reduce its military presence in Japan

First, I'd like to provide the con with evidence and cites for my claims, sorry I didn't provide them earlier. Contention One: The US militaristic presence in Okinawa is imperialistic and justifies and perpetuates unthinkable abuses against women. Party for Socialism and Liberation, 3/4/08, . http://www.pslweb.org... The United States military presence in Japan has stoked fresh anger and resentment after a recent series of attacks on women. Staff Sgt. Tyrone Luther Hadnott, 38, was arrested on Feb. 10 amid the outcry of the people of Okinawa for the rape of a 14-year-old girl. Shortly thereafter, another U. S. soldier was accused of sexually assaulting a Filipino woman at a hotel—the second such incident in less than ten days. Four months earlier, U. S. servicemen from the Iwakuni U. S. Marine Corp Air Station gang raped a woman in Hiroshima City. The population's justified rage has forced the U. S. military to take face-saving measures restraining its occupying forces. The U. S. military limited some 45,000 troops, civilian employees and their families to bases, workplaces or off-base homes indefinitely on Feb. 20, going beyond a midnight curfew already in place. On Feb. 29, prosecutors released Hadnott and dropped charges against him, reportedly because the victim chose not to pursue the case. By March 3, the military had already announced an end to the curfew for civilians and a relaxation of the curfew for military personnel to only cover late night and early morning hours. The announcement came despite violations of the curfew, including one where an intoxicated soldier smashed an office window with a steel pipe. More often than not, U. S. soldiers are permitted to do as they please and criminal actions are hushed up or the offender is given a slap on the wrist. These heinous criminal acts only add to the grievances behind decades of opposition to U. S. presence on the island chain. It is a typical trend for U. S. military personnel camped out on foreign lands to abuse the local population. Such incidents rarely surface. Violence against women is a common offense committed by imperialist soldiers. Such recurring criminal acts are not merely coincidental nor do they spring from a handful of "bad apples" such as Hadnott. Violence against the local population near U. S. military bases abroad is the direct result of the racism each soldier is indoctrinated with, and women are particularly vulnerable. The Army does its fair share to create the conditions for such crimes. The U. S. military uses 7,000 Filipinas to serve its soldiers in Okinawa. During the first Gulf War, rest-and-recreation ships were reportedly floated for the U. S. servicemen with 50 Filipino women each. As of one year ago, 900 Filipinas worked for $200 a month at "massage parlors" inside U. S. camps and bases in Iraq. I have more cites on my claims of gender violence if you wish me to provide them. Now, on to the con's contentions. 1) The con would like to suggest that we change Japan's policies in order to solve for crimes by servicemen. There is no sense in changing military policies that we have had for years. It's far easier and solves more problems to instead pull out of Japan to end violence towards women, not just make sure it goes punished. 2) Remaining in Japan enforces the patriarchal and imperialist mindsets that cause war in the first place. That fact will always outweight anything the con brings up in round. And, dismantling the American empire takes precedence over any other priority; we must change because what is perceived as solutions through an imperialist framework is in reality a failure. Action is the only avenue of solvency Robert William Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin College of Communication. Jensen also is director of the Senior Fellows Program, the honors program of the UT College of Communication. 6/15/10, < . http://www.commondreams.org...; Yes, the world can change --- if the dominant military power in the world, the United States, can change. If the United States could give up the quest to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources and disavow its reliance on securing that unjust distribution of wealth through the largest and most destructive military in the history of the world, things could change. That's why most U. S. elites are interested in non-proliferation, not abolition. The goal of abolition will remain safely out of reach, on the horizon, just beyond our ability to accomplish in the near future -- while the United States continues to imagine a future in which the rest of the world accepts U. S. domination. Since countries threatened by the empire won't accept non-proliferation unless there is a meaningful commitment to abolition and a scaling back of imperial designs, the U. S. policy will fail. That's because it's designed to fail. U. S. policy is designed to keep a hold on power and wealth, and the people running the country believe nuclear weapons are useful in that quest. That's why the Nuclear Posture Review of the Obama administration is not all that different from the Bush administration's, as Zia Mian (an analyst at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security) pointed out at a gathering of activists preceding the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. That's why Obama's policy includes a commitment to nuclear weapons, conventional missile defense, and modernization of the nuclear complex. 3) Combating the military's blatant exploitation of women is the first step towards women taking a stand and representing their nation as equal citizens, and not just objects to be used for whatever needs we deem necessary. B) As I have stated earlier, we must reject the military's exploitation of women before any other steps can be taken. This takes precedence over all else; we can't solve for things like money problems and the economy until we stop viewing our fellow humans, no matter their gender, as less than us. C) We need to stop our exploitation of women in Japan. This is the first step in allowing them to become an equal part of their nation along with men. Just because something is in a counties traditions, doesn't mean it is justified. D) Its not a lie to say US military presence is detrimental to women, I have provided evidence to say it is. Just because the men of Japan might exploit women, does not justify it by our forces. American need to take this first step towards women's liberation in Japan. Just because a country has always done something, does not mean it is justified for another country to do it as well. Patriarchy and US imperialism are ruining our relations with Japan and exploiting women. To add, my opponents "sources" are from Wikipedia, not exactly the most reliable source seeing as that anyone no matter their credentials can edit it.