|
On October 21 2012 13:38 bioniK wrote:
Also OP, do you sincerely believe that a country that has a policy where it can't spend more than 1% of its total GDP on it's self defense force is in the wrong for having armed forces? Are you telling me that despite being neighbors with a country that boldly admits to possesing nuclear arms and is testing them, Japan has no right to have an army? Have people forgotten the shit that NK pulled 2 years ago when they sunk a South Korean warship and then blamed it on Japan?
And it's pretty much a western consensus along with S.Korea that N.Korea shouldn't have an army and disarm its nuclear projects. What kind of an argument is this? The exact same laws were passed for post WWI Germany. The rationale isn't for us to decide, they are already in place and it should be the responsibility and right of the Japanese to decide.
|
The US should not be involved in this at all. There is much interest in the US, primarily economic, be make sure that no local war breaks out between China and Japan, but this it should stay out of this specifically because of those interests. China and especially Japan, are fully developed states that can determine their diplomatic relations. In case military presence is needed, the UN should step in, not US.
|
On October 21 2012 07:21 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 07:16 RavenLoud wrote:On October 21 2012 07:08 CountChocula wrote:On October 21 2012 06:48 RavenLoud wrote:On October 21 2012 04:00 zala2023 wrote:
comfort women my ass
if you are gonna used stuff thats nearly 100 years ago as excuse then china got lots of other enemies
what about the mongols who killed off the song dynasty and conquered all of china? they burned down the capital city and murdered millions of chinese. death to mongols!
dont forget about when the british invaded southern china during the late qing dynasty, death to the british too!
Just look at the EU, those countries who fought with one another for hundreds of years are all friends now. Now the Chinese government is stirring up fire using some random island as excuse. This is why China is not a first world country, even if they catch up in economy their are too behind morally and culturally. The random island is not an excuse. It's the central issue that tapped into an existing sentiment has been pooling gradually from 150 years of foreign abuse and domestic weakness. It's not exactly CCP manufactured, though it is further fueled by the social-economic troubles that the CCP are responsible for.I agree that Asia could do well to learn a thing or two from the EU post WW2, that's why there's people are telling Japan to do as Germany did. Problem is, things don't just magically get poofed to their ideal state, it takes a long time and a lot of hard work to reach there. The thing with Mongols and Manchus is, they are pretty much non-issue today and fairly subjugated to China. Half of Mongolia + most of Manchuria is Chinese now, not to mention that their "war crimes" occured so long ago. Not only there's no one today who was alive during these events, the accomplishments of the Mongols and the Manchus (especially the latter) are often times accepted as Chinese accomplishments. It's sad and funny at the same time but that's how history works. I'm sure that some day in the future, somebody will write a book about the good things that came from Nazi Germany and WW2 (computers, rockets, technology, American hegemony, etc) and pass it as general human accomplishments. Unlike today, there won't be many people who would burst in vehement outcry because they can look over their shoulders to see the tattoo they've got in German death camps. The British knew their limits, and gave back a pretty well developped city. You will see no attempts from the British to pretend that they can still argue territory with China. I'd refrain from painting people with such a wide brush, it's not like all 1.3 billion Chinese people are bloodthirsty jackals that wants to invade Japan. Sure you've got lots of frustrated and uneducated folks, but there's many more people who dislike Japan's recent actions as well as the domestic rioting, only hoping for a peaceful resolution. I'm suspicious about the bolded part. If you are a dictator of a country, have full control of education system and can put anything you want in there, would you not use your power to direct national sentiments/anger towards foreign issues rather than domestic? I'm not saying that they don't do it, but the fact that they do it doesn't explain all of it. Hope you catch my drift rofl. I've been to China, and the feeling you get in the war museum is not as much "THOSE BASTARDS RAAAAAAWWWWRR", but mostly an deep and pervasive shame over their former weakness accompanied by a traumatic philosophical, social and technological self re-examination. Most smart Chinese people knows the flaws of their own government and take everything they say with a truckload of salt. This. When I was fourteen I had the chance to visit a Sino-Japanese museum and the overarching impression I had was that Japan should never again be entrusted with a military capable of offensive operations of any kind... which means Japan should have no navy and only a minimal air force
Caihead I was disagreeing with what the OP had said about what the limitations of the Japanese self defense force should be.
|
On October 21 2012 14:08 bioniK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 07:21 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 07:16 RavenLoud wrote:On October 21 2012 07:08 CountChocula wrote:On October 21 2012 06:48 RavenLoud wrote:On October 21 2012 04:00 zala2023 wrote:
comfort women my ass
if you are gonna used stuff thats nearly 100 years ago as excuse then china got lots of other enemies
what about the mongols who killed off the song dynasty and conquered all of china? they burned down the capital city and murdered millions of chinese. death to mongols!
dont forget about when the british invaded southern china during the late qing dynasty, death to the british too!
Just look at the EU, those countries who fought with one another for hundreds of years are all friends now. Now the Chinese government is stirring up fire using some random island as excuse. This is why China is not a first world country, even if they catch up in economy their are too behind morally and culturally. The random island is not an excuse. It's the central issue that tapped into an existing sentiment has been pooling gradually from 150 years of foreign abuse and domestic weakness. It's not exactly CCP manufactured, though it is further fueled by the social-economic troubles that the CCP are responsible for.I agree that Asia could do well to learn a thing or two from the EU post WW2, that's why there's people are telling Japan to do as Germany did. Problem is, things don't just magically get poofed to their ideal state, it takes a long time and a lot of hard work to reach there. The thing with Mongols and Manchus is, they are pretty much non-issue today and fairly subjugated to China. Half of Mongolia + most of Manchuria is Chinese now, not to mention that their "war crimes" occured so long ago. Not only there's no one today who was alive during these events, the accomplishments of the Mongols and the Manchus (especially the latter) are often times accepted as Chinese accomplishments. It's sad and funny at the same time but that's how history works. I'm sure that some day in the future, somebody will write a book about the good things that came from Nazi Germany and WW2 (computers, rockets, technology, American hegemony, etc) and pass it as general human accomplishments. Unlike today, there won't be many people who would burst in vehement outcry because they can look over their shoulders to see the tattoo they've got in German death camps. The British knew their limits, and gave back a pretty well developped city. You will see no attempts from the British to pretend that they can still argue territory with China. I'd refrain from painting people with such a wide brush, it's not like all 1.3 billion Chinese people are bloodthirsty jackals that wants to invade Japan. Sure you've got lots of frustrated and uneducated folks, but there's many more people who dislike Japan's recent actions as well as the domestic rioting, only hoping for a peaceful resolution. I'm suspicious about the bolded part. If you are a dictator of a country, have full control of education system and can put anything you want in there, would you not use your power to direct national sentiments/anger towards foreign issues rather than domestic? I'm not saying that they don't do it, but the fact that they do it doesn't explain all of it. Hope you catch my drift rofl. I've been to China, and the feeling you get in the war museum is not as much "THOSE BASTARDS RAAAAAAWWWWRR", but mostly an deep and pervasive shame over their former weakness accompanied by a traumatic philosophical, social and technological self re-examination. Most smart Chinese people knows the flaws of their own government and take everything they say with a truckload of salt. This. When I was fourteen I had the chance to visit a Sino-Japanese museum and the overarching impression I had was that Japan should never again be entrusted with a military capable of offensive operations of any kind... which means Japan should have no navy and only a minimal air force Caihead I was disagreeing with what the OP had said about what the limitations of the Japanese self defense force should be.
Good sir I was talking about my reactions as a fourteen-year-old to a museum. I was saying that I didn't get a hatred for Japan out of the exhibits, even at that immature age.
|
On September 25 2012 02:35 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 02:26 m4inbrain wrote:
Japan could never do something to chill you people (which it actually doesn't even concern first hand, as i said: you're just used to hate japan). How is this true? All China needs would be: 1) Japanese withdrawal from the Diaoyu Islands 2) Dismantling of the JMSDF (not the whole military, just the naval component that continually poses a threat to Chinese shipping) 3) The abdication and elimination of the Japanese imperial seat (the institution most responsible for the terrors and tragedies of WW2 in Asia) In lieu of empty words, how about some concrete actions from the Japanese to show regret and win forgiveness from their neighbors? That's it. Why are those three things so hard?
I never questioned you on hating Japan, even though most of my posts have been directed at people that are hating Japan. What I'm questioning you on is your belief that Japan should dismantle it's navy and keep a "minimal" airforce when there are plenty reasons as to why it shouldn't.
|
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today.
|
On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today.
I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so?
|
On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:
I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well.
For those who started following this thread, I want to point out there is ample of evidence against this. This was discussed earlier but it's worth mentioning again since so many new people joining this thread has missed this.
Japan's closest ally and friend is the USA. As Japan's closest ally and friend, the US government has condemned Japan for trying to whitewash its crimes in WW2 and hide the truth. The US House of Representatives, only 5 years ago, issued resolution 121 condemning Japan on this matter. The text in resolution 121 contains the following:
Whereas some new textbooks used in Japanese schools seek to downplay the `comfort women' tragedy and other Japanese war crimes during World War II;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.Res121:
Note that this is not China, Korea, or another country with anti-Japanese sentiment that passed this resolution. This is Japan's closest friend and ally telling Japan to stop trying to rewrite history and to teach its people the truth of what happened.
|
On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so?
Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly?
The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy.
If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault.
|
On October 21 2012 04:53 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 21:45 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 21:09 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 20:33 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 18:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. look at what the japanese government has done to repay the war crime http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/nmnwe96.htmlDo you know the Japanese PM denied wartime 'comfort woman'? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.htmlOnly then he apologised when the international communities comdamned on him http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795448/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/japans-pm-apologizes-wwii-era-sex-slaves/His view on Class A war criminals were not war criminal based on domestic law and also tried to change japanese textbooks to downplay any 'negative words' with these crimes If japan don't want to atone for the sin, then what is happening right now is their own doing? There are tonnes of reasons for china to be so upset about these actions now, Japan purchasing the island GAVE China a reason to go so aggressive on it. Then a few weeks later it was some days that reminded Chinese of the japanese invasion, then recently the shrine is visited. Isn't it the same with Japan? why suddenly purchasing the island? political interest. Does the reason even matter? you call the behavior is not valid, that's coming from a not so valid action from Japan itself. Of cause China is not happy about it, but you are forgetting it's not just China, Taiwan is also not happy about it and even Korea is siding with China. Do you see any other country is siding with Japan saying the purchase is a reasonable one and won't cause any disruption in the region? How can you call our action is causing the destablising when Japan is the one who started it in the first place? If I warned you that I will not forgive you if you ever take a cent from a mutual fund of ours, and you just went ahead and take the whole fund out right in front of my face and claiming that you don't understand why I act so mad, who is the one causing all these disruption? Are you seriously going to blame on ME? there is no way you can deny japan started this whole heated hatred against japan in China itself. Who was the one to turn the relationship back to zero when both parties tried hard to repair the damage in the relationship The violence protests in China are all sparked by this, Chinese stars and government constantly tell everyone to protest peacefully. But China is huge, not everyone is well educated, they don't behave well when they realise Japan is acting as if the island is theirs and then seeing other events like visiting the shrine happening. I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor. Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind. On October 20 2012 18:29 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. Literally no body sensible who isn't taking part in these actions condone it, the exact same population also denounces Japan's recent actions. It's a case where the vast majority denounce violence and irresponsibility of portions of its own population as well as the actions of a foreign entity. China isn't so intent on these actions now, believe me, leading up to the islands being bought there was steady progress between the relations of the two countries, once the Japanese government announced it people went ape shit. Many people see it as intentional politics to appeal to extremist factions in Japan seeing as they timed it right before an election and then subsequently made controversial remarks as well as visited the shrines. It's really hard to paint China as the aggravating force of this specific event here. You can obviously still fault those who are irresponsible and for the current generation who should know better to do more to hold back the anti-Japanese sentiment. No body thinks there is any validity of violence or rioting in China, literally no body, no one condones it, the public denounces it, notable figures denounce it, no politician condones it, the riot police cracked down and censored the crack down so hard no one even caught sight of what the fuck happened. Obviously this is also paralleled with the same commitment to denounce Japan's recent actions, but you have to understand that does not translate into support for extremist action. Similar to how the US public denouncing extremist Islamic groups does not translate into the US public condoning crimes to be committed against Islam, and it certainly doesn't translate into support for violence and rioting at home. Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. the problem right now isn't 'army presence', China doesn't even want to appear to be looking aggressive because it wants to expand while looking all friendly and peacefully. If you are arguing with China's aggressiveness in its international politics, you should look at USA too. I know how much concern has been growing over China's military and economic presence, which country wouldn't? But none of this matters in this case, that's out of this topic. What I was saying is Japan certainly did not act peacefully unless you regard purchasing an island in dispute is a peaceful act. This action itself is the seed of this whole rioting and disruption in the region. It wasn't just to China, it was also offensive to Taiwan, except that Taiwan reacted much more subtly (by releasing stamps with the painting of the island) Do you still think army presence meant more aggressiveness? Japan was the one with the small army yet with an extremely aggressive foreign policy in this case. Japan was the one to constantly visiting the shrine, even if China warned them not to do so every year. Would a country committed to peace do such a provoking action? I sympathize dude, but it does matter, it's central to the issue, it's militant behavior. What right do you think you have to warn Japan not to visit their war shrine. China has no right whatsoever, they're completely out of line to do it, but they do it anyway. It is provocative, aggressive, and militant to "warn" them against doing so. I personally don't have any problem with Japan visiting their war shrine and bowing, yes even with 14 class A war criminals. Bowing to their war shrine doesn't automatically mean "Yeah, you kicked China's ass and it was awesome," it could be their way of remembering and acknowledging a part of their Japanese past, horrors included. Yes, perhaps there are some lunatics who still think it's awesome in this day and age, but they aren't representative of the Japanese people or their government. China has no right to then conclude that Japan "has alot to learn from Germany" and all that rhetoric, they're out of line saying it. Sometimes I think the subsequent generations of Germans after the events of WW2 have lived with too much national guilt. Anyway, whatever, that's beside the point. Saying stuff like that is provocative and it's really just about starting a fight. I'm fine with saying Japan shouldn't have attempted to purchase the island since it's under dispute. I think that's reasonable, and maybe you're right about that. I don't think China's policy vis-a-vis Japan is particularly reasonable, nor the public outcry, and I really worry for humanity's future when people react to stuff like this. Anywho I'd better crash it's late (early) here. + Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 20:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 20:21 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 19:55 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:
I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor.
Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind.
Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. On the issue of aggression: The only Chinese military presences stationed over seas are humanitarian missions that's been ongoing in coercion with UN peace keeping in places like Somalia and consists of a very small force. China extends its influence on neighboring countries yes, but in the words of American analysts: "When Iran extends its influence on neighboring countries, they are destabilizing the region with their influence. When America invades a country and destroy its infrastructure, they are stabilizing the region from undesirable domestic influence." Nothing about China's foreign policy is exercised beyond the rights of any developing nation, of course unless you agree with the American Veto on UN resolution "Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right." in 1980. These "complaints" being made have direct conflicts of interest and shouldn't be taken seriously, because similar claims to authority are being made by American analysts who insist that continued "status quo" of American influence should be taken for granted. So it's fine for the leading nation to continue its existing status quo, yet it's not okay for developing countries, be it China or India or Pakistan or Sudan to exert their influence on neighboring countries. I take it you're from China? Just curious, you're very quick to defend it. Any hypocrisy on the part of other countries isn't inherently validating to China's foreign policy. I'm fully against the notion of American exceptionalism, I think it's ridiculous. Actually China's foreign policy in Africa is very contentious right now, it's economic hegemony, divorced from any notion of moral obligation. They're dictating one-sided terms of aid in exchange for resources. In fact, China has dictated one-sided terms of trade with Canada for raw resources (and as an aside, the guy that's currently in power in our country thinks it's a fantastic opportunity to make a quick buck). And conflicts of interest are common on the international stage. As such, they aren't a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate volume of complaints against China. You mentioned India, that reminds me of a couple weeks ago when India tested missiles (which I didn't like), and China issued the following statements: ""India should not overestimate its strength. Even if it has missiles that could reach most parts of China, that does not mean it will gain anything from being arrogant during disputes with China. India should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable. For the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China," "India should also not overstate the value of its Western allies and the profits it could gain from participating in a containment of China. If it equates long range strategic missiles with deterrence of China, and stirs up further hostility, it could be sorely mistaken." These aren't statements that reflect a peaceful mentality. Well are these not the same levels of statements which were thought to be sensible by any western state if it was declared in defense of say the increasing military power of Iran or Lebannon or principle opposition to American influence? China isn't making open military threats and exercising those threats like Israel is, and countries which border those controlling nuclear weapons showing open hostility often make statements such as these. China's enterprising in Africa is contentious, but the only reason why China / Indonesia / India has any grasp of African natural resources right now is usually because there was previous military presence which ruined the region's infrastructure and they are unwilling to co-operate with the previous aggressors - usually being western interests. Take the example of Southern Sudan, Chevron dug the unity well and there was clear conflict of interest which drove civil war displacing millions and ruining the lives of even more, after the dusts settled the government became reluctant to establish trade agreements with those who instigated said violence. If you apply the same standards of conduct in coercion with internationally law there is very little that China does which is out of line. I do not defend China's government I think it's about the most important principle opponent of social progress in China, however I think in this specific scenario it's instead the failing to establish and enforce international laws, specifically ones concerning the rights of developing nations, which is repeatedly vetoed by the US and western interests where China has always voted in favor of. Take for example the amount of UN resolutions that have been vetoed by the US regarding the rights of developing nations, note that this isn't to discredit the US government in terms of a governing body, governments are not humanitarian organizations, and if you subscribe to the "realpolitik" methodology of seeking the maximum benefit for your own constituency then the US government is quite successful. But this is the state of enforcing the rights of developing nations: 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1984 Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 2008 Calls for a right of development for nations. This is the state of what is internationally accepted, China can not compete with other countries which operate under the assumptions that these fundamental rights do not exist who are already exploiting the market. The status quo is indefensible but China did not contribute to opposing such legislature supporting the rights of developing nations, quite the opposite China has been a proponent of the rights of developing nations. Often in self interest sure as China is / was a developing country. But it just surprises me that people think China is acting out of line when the line is set so low internationally that you legalize criminality. I'll read this tomorrow morning.. so.. sleepy.. No, visiting the shrine had never led to China sending ships close to Japan, China people responded by not purchasing japanese goods for a period of time, not inviting Japanese stars to China performance, or Chinese star not attending anything in Japan, punishing them financially. Always. China as a victim of the Japanese invasion should have the say to tell Japan NOT to do so simply because it reminds China of what have happened. While you might feel ok with Japan visiting the shrine, it might really be japan trying to acknowledge their past, this is not how China feels, not how the Chinese feels about it. for example, you don't go on making a documentary of a raped woman case without asking the consent of the woman (or her parents if she was murdered). It's the same logic. Japan has a PM who thinks class A war criminals are not war criminals according to domestic law, now that might not represent Japan's opinion, it says a lot when a spoke person representing Japan speaking out such opinion, especially when he was elected. No you don't have the right to dictate to someone how they should peacefully act. If Japan is doing it peacefully then China has no right to "warn" them to stop. You don't get to decide what someone else should or shouldn't be able to peacefully do based on what offends you (particularly when the offense is mostly due to the ambiguous meaning you ascribe to it). Making a documentary about a raped woman directly impacts her. You've decided the Japanese visiting their war shrine impacts you. There's a difference. Yeah, the Japanese PM shouldn't have denied the sex slaves, but people are making it sound like Japan hasn't apologized. Japan issued a formal apology to sex slaves in 1993. The PM should be condemned for his comments, and he has been condemned for his comments. Japan as a nation shouldn't necessarily have to start apologizing all over again. In my opinion Korea is wrong to demand that Japan apologize and suggest the emperor isn't welcome until he does. What does it help doing that? At some point the world really is going to have to move on from this. Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 21:42 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 21:09 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 20:33 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 18:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. look at what the japanese government has done to repay the war crime http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/nmnwe96.htmlDo you know the Japanese PM denied wartime 'comfort woman'? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.htmlOnly then he apologised when the international communities comdamned on him http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795448/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/japans-pm-apologizes-wwii-era-sex-slaves/His view on Class A war criminals were not war criminal based on domestic law and also tried to change japanese textbooks to downplay any 'negative words' with these crimes If japan don't want to atone for the sin, then what is happening right now is their own doing? There are tonnes of reasons for china to be so upset about these actions now, Japan purchasing the island GAVE China a reason to go so aggressive on it. Then a few weeks later it was some days that reminded Chinese of the japanese invasion, then recently the shrine is visited. Isn't it the same with Japan? why suddenly purchasing the island? political interest. Does the reason even matter? you call the behavior is not valid, that's coming from a not so valid action from Japan itself. Of cause China is not happy about it, but you are forgetting it's not just China, Taiwan is also not happy about it and even Korea is siding with China. Do you see any other country is siding with Japan saying the purchase is a reasonable one and won't cause any disruption in the region? How can you call our action is causing the destablising when Japan is the one who started it in the first place? If I warned you that I will not forgive you if you ever take a cent from a mutual fund of ours, and you just went ahead and take the whole fund out right in front of my face and claiming that you don't understand why I act so mad, who is the one causing all these disruption? Are you seriously going to blame on ME? there is no way you can deny japan started this whole heated hatred against japan in China itself. Who was the one to turn the relationship back to zero when both parties tried hard to repair the damage in the relationship The violence protests in China are all sparked by this, Chinese stars and government constantly tell everyone to protest peacefully. But China is huge, not everyone is well educated, they don't behave well when they realise Japan is acting as if the island is theirs and then seeing other events like visiting the shrine happening. I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor. Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind. On October 20 2012 18:29 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. Literally no body sensible who isn't taking part in these actions condone it, the exact same population also denounces Japan's recent actions. It's a case where the vast majority denounce violence and irresponsibility of portions of its own population as well as the actions of a foreign entity. China isn't so intent on these actions now, believe me, leading up to the islands being bought there was steady progress between the relations of the two countries, once the Japanese government announced it people went ape shit. Many people see it as intentional politics to appeal to extremist factions in Japan seeing as they timed it right before an election and then subsequently made controversial remarks as well as visited the shrines. It's really hard to paint China as the aggravating force of this specific event here. You can obviously still fault those who are irresponsible and for the current generation who should know better to do more to hold back the anti-Japanese sentiment. No body thinks there is any validity of violence or rioting in China, literally no body, no one condones it, the public denounces it, notable figures denounce it, no politician condones it, the riot police cracked down and censored the crack down so hard no one even caught sight of what the fuck happened. Obviously this is also paralleled with the same commitment to denounce Japan's recent actions, but you have to understand that does not translate into support for extremist action. Similar to how the US public denouncing extremist Islamic groups does not translate into the US public condoning crimes to be committed against Islam, and it certainly doesn't translate into support for violence and rioting at home. Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. the problem right now isn't 'army presence', China doesn't even want to appear to be looking aggressive because it wants to expand while looking all friendly and peacefully. If you are arguing with China's aggressiveness in its international politics, you should look at USA too. I know how much concern has been growing over China's military and economic presence, which country wouldn't? But none of this matters in this case, that's out of this topic. What I was saying is Japan certainly did not act peacefully unless you regard purchasing an island in dispute is a peaceful act. This action itself is the seed of this whole rioting and disruption in the region. It wasn't just to China, it was also offensive to Taiwan, except that Taiwan reacted much more subtly (by releasing stamps with the painting of the island) Do you still think army presence meant more aggressiveness? Japan was the one with the small army yet with an extremely aggressive foreign policy in this case. Japan was the one to constantly visiting the shrine, even if China warned them not to do so every year. Would a country committed to peace do such a provoking action? I sympathize dude, but it does matter, it's central to the issue, it's militant behavior. What right do you think you have to warn Japan not to visit their war shrine. China has no right whatsoever, they're completely out of line to do it, but they do it anyway. It is provocative, aggressive, and militant to "warn" them against doing so. I personally don't have any problem with Japan visiting their war shrine and bowing, yes even with 14 class A war criminals. Bowing to their war shrine doesn't automatically mean "Yeah, you kicked China's ass and it was awesome," it could be their way of remembering and acknowledging a part of their Japanese past, horrors included. Yes, perhaps there are some lunatics who still think it's awesome in this day and age, but they aren't representative of the Japanese people or their government. China has no right to then conclude that Japan "has alot to learn from Germany" and all that rhetoric, they're out of line saying it. Sometimes I think the subsequent generations of Germans after the events of WW2 have lived with too much national guilt. Anyway, whatever, that's beside the point. Saying stuff like that is provocative and it's really just about starting a fight. I'm fine with saying Japan shouldn't have attempted to purchase the island since it's under dispute. I think that's reasonable, and maybe you're right about that. I don't think China's policy vis-a-vis Japan is particularly reasonable, nor the public outcry, and I really worry for humanity's future when people react to stuff like this. Anywho I'd better crash it's late (early) here. + Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 20:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 20:21 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 19:55 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:
I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor.
Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind.
Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. On the issue of aggression: The only Chinese military presences stationed over seas are humanitarian missions that's been ongoing in coercion with UN peace keeping in places like Somalia and consists of a very small force. China extends its influence on neighboring countries yes, but in the words of American analysts: "When Iran extends its influence on neighboring countries, they are destabilizing the region with their influence. When America invades a country and destroy its infrastructure, they are stabilizing the region from undesirable domestic influence." Nothing about China's foreign policy is exercised beyond the rights of any developing nation, of course unless you agree with the American Veto on UN resolution "Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right." in 1980. These "complaints" being made have direct conflicts of interest and shouldn't be taken seriously, because similar claims to authority are being made by American analysts who insist that continued "status quo" of American influence should be taken for granted. So it's fine for the leading nation to continue its existing status quo, yet it's not okay for developing countries, be it China or India or Pakistan or Sudan to exert their influence on neighboring countries. I take it you're from China? Just curious, you're very quick to defend it. Any hypocrisy on the part of other countries isn't inherently validating to China's foreign policy. I'm fully against the notion of American exceptionalism, I think it's ridiculous. Actually China's foreign policy in Africa is very contentious right now, it's economic hegemony, divorced from any notion of moral obligation. They're dictating one-sided terms of aid in exchange for resources. In fact, China has dictated one-sided terms of trade with Canada for raw resources (and as an aside, the guy that's currently in power in our country thinks it's a fantastic opportunity to make a quick buck). And conflicts of interest are common on the international stage. As such, they aren't a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate volume of complaints against China. You mentioned India, that reminds me of a couple weeks ago when India tested missiles (which I didn't like), and China issued the following statements: ""India should not overestimate its strength. Even if it has missiles that could reach most parts of China, that does not mean it will gain anything from being arrogant during disputes with China. India should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable. For the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China," "India should also not overstate the value of its Western allies and the profits it could gain from participating in a containment of China. If it equates long range strategic missiles with deterrence of China, and stirs up further hostility, it could be sorely mistaken." These aren't statements that reflect a peaceful mentality. Well are these not the same levels of statements which were thought to be sensible by any western state if it was declared in defense of say the increasing military power of Iran or Lebannon or principle opposition to American influence? China isn't making open military threats and exercising those threats like Israel is, and countries which border those controlling nuclear weapons showing open hostility often make statements such as these. China's enterprising in Africa is contentious, but the only reason why China / Indonesia / India has any grasp of African natural resources right now is usually because there was previous military presence which ruined the region's infrastructure and they are unwilling to co-operate with the previous aggressors - usually being western interests. Take the example of Southern Sudan, Chevron dug the unity well and there was clear conflict of interest which drove civil war displacing millions and ruining the lives of even more, after the dusts settled the government became reluctant to establish trade agreements with those who instigated said violence. If you apply the same standards of conduct in coercion with internationally law there is very little that China does which is out of line. I do not defend China's government I think it's about the most important principle opponent of social progress in China, however I think in this specific scenario it's instead the failing to establish and enforce international laws, specifically ones concerning the rights of developing nations, which is repeatedly vetoed by the US and western interests where China has always voted in favor of. Take for example the amount of UN resolutions that have been vetoed by the US regarding the rights of developing nations, note that this isn't to discredit the US government in terms of a governing body, governments are not humanitarian organizations, and if you subscribe to the "realpolitik" methodology of seeking the maximum benefit for your own constituency then the US government is quite successful. But this is the state of enforcing the rights of developing nations: 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1984 Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 2008 Calls for a right of development for nations. This is the state of what is internationally accepted, China can not compete with other countries which operate under the assumptions that these fundamental rights do not exist who are already exploiting the market. The status quo is indefensible but China did not contribute to opposing such legislature supporting the rights of developing nations, quite the opposite China has been a proponent of the rights of developing nations. Often in self interest sure as China is / was a developing country. But it just surprises me that people think China is acting out of line when the line is set so low internationally that you legalize criminality. I'll read this tomorrow morning.. so.. sleepy.. Erm... they do in fact acknowledge the actions of those war criminals in a context which offends even those with in Japan itself who see it as a return to policies which lead them to the war in the first place, it's not in the context of what you suggest. If that was the case it would be fine. This is like saying that it's out of line for any victim of a crime to to demand of the criminal or his relatives / future relations be not be allowed to glorify his crimes or celebrate them. It's absolutely ridiculous if you apply the context of war crimes. You could look this up and look at why people have legitimate reasons to be angry. No, the context isn't clear cut. China is not prepared to make a distinction between a Japanese minister commemorating an anniversary of the end of the war, bowing to those who served Japan, or merely honoring a tradition to visit the shrine and reflecting on the horrors of the war. You say it would be fine in the context I suggested? Oh really? There's no evidence of this, China simply says don't do it or else. Your analogy isn't quite apt either because Japan isn't unequivocally glorifying their crimes or celebrating them by visiting the war shrine, you've made that judgement. Also it is out of line for a victim to demand a criminal's relatives/future relations not be allowed to peacefully glorify his crimes. The victim has a right to demand justice and see the criminal punished for their crime, they don't have a right to demand some future relative can't glorify it (especially when to compare meaningfully that glorification would be in the home of the criminal or the criminal's relative).
Unless I am wrong, everytime the shrine is visited, thousands of people go anti japan mode in China. Does that not mean this action causes stress to the general chinese public?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
Look up what the shrine is dedicated to, and what does a visit mean, especially for a political visit (which is why it is sometimes disguised as a private visit).
Using my example again, if the raped girl was murdered, the parents of the girl are against making the documentary, no matter HOW peacefully you are making the documentary, you are still not able to make it because you don't have the permission to do so.
maybe the act is peaceful but it doesn't mean it isn't offensive.
In Hong Kong, there were marches against chinese people coming in Hong Kong and taking up resources very peacefully, it doesn't mean Chinese won't get insulted.
The link I sent to you before showed that Japan has refused several cases to repay war survivors and former sex slaves.
Mind you, I am not even pro-china in many matters, there are tonnes of conflicts between China and hong kong but the way how Japan treat and do things often provoke negative respond from it's nearby neighbors.
Why would you put the blame on regional disruption onto China when Japan had been doing political visit to the shrine (which China and Korea are strongly against) and even after purchasing an island dispute, you still think China is the one to calm down?
How about Japan stop paying political visit to the shrine, back down on purchasing the island and don't do any of these "right on your face" type of action?
To move on, at least one country should show more responsible with what their action is causing.
|
On October 21 2012 14:38 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:
I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. For those who started following this thread, I want to point out there is ample of evidence against this. This was discussed earlier but it's worth mentioning again since so many new people joining this thread has missed this. Japan's closest ally and friend is the USA. As Japan's closest ally and friend, the US government has condemned Japan for trying to whitewash its crimes in WW2 and hide the truth. The US House of Representatives, only 5 years ago, issued resolution 121 condemning Japan on this matter. The text in resolution 121 contains the following: Show nested quote +Whereas some new textbooks used in Japanese schools seek to downplay the `comfort women' tragedy and other Japanese war crimes during World War II; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110vsL0i9::Note that this is not China, Korea, or another country with anti-Japanese sentiment that passed this resolution. This is Japan's closest friend and ally telling Japan to stop trying to rewrite history and to teach its people the truth of what happened.
1. This is your like 4th time posting exactly the same thing.
2. Majority opinion =/= truth.
3. Resolution has no citing whatsoever and not even second-hand evidence.
4. Caihead, who I disagreed with earlier, presented so much more useful source than this. I waited 1 month for the evidence, but until Caihead came around yesterday, I never read a decent first-hand evidence on this issue in this thread. Before him, everything was emotional talk without evidence or only with second-hand evidence which sufficiently proves nothing.
|
On October 21 2012 14:38 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:
I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. For those who started following this thread, I want to point out there is ample of evidence against this. This was discussed earlier but it's worth mentioning again since so many new people joining this thread has missed this. Japan's closest ally and friend is the USA. As Japan's closest ally and friend, the US government has condemned Japan for trying to whitewash its crimes in WW2 and hide the truth. The US House of Representatives, only 5 years ago, issued resolution 121 condemning Japan on this matter. The text in resolution 121 contains the following: Show nested quote +Whereas some new textbooks used in Japanese schools seek to downplay the `comfort women' tragedy and other Japanese war crimes during World War II; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110vsL0i9::Note that this is not China, Korea, or another country with anti-Japanese sentiment that passed this resolution. This is Japan's closest friend and ally telling Japan to stop trying to rewrite history and to teach its people the truth of what happened.
I see you didn't read my wall of text a few pages back, which I don't blame you for.
I also think its worth mentioning that this resolution only asks Japan to acknowledge and apologize for the coercion of comfort women during the 1930s to the end of the war. Also the representative that presented this resolution, Mike Honda has stated "the purpose of this resolution is not to bash or humiliate Japan." U.S government isn't condeming Japan here.
I don't know where you quoted that Japanese schools use textbooks to downplay the comfort women tragedy, but it has been said before that a vast majority of school boards in Japan rejected the textbooks that downplay Japanese war crimes, keyword in that quote "some" textbooks. I also think its worth mentioning that I didn't learn about comfort women in HS.
I believe the bill was proposed in response to some comments made by previous PM Shinzo Abe who denied that the Japanese Army had sex slaves, 3 weeks later the Japanese Parliament issued an official apology. Shinzo Abe also resigned after 1 year of service due to unpopularity.
EDIT: BTW your link isn't working for me, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.RES.121: this link does however.
|
On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault.
How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly? Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation?
EDIT: I have a hard time believing that this is some sort of reasonable resolution for Japan to earn forgiveness. I don't think anyone that thinks logically could actually expect this from a country.
|
Hating on an entire country because of something that happened generations before your birth - Opa Asian Style
|
On October 21 2012 14:47 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:53 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 21:45 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 21:09 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 20:33 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 18:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. look at what the japanese government has done to repay the war crime http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/nmnwe96.htmlDo you know the Japanese PM denied wartime 'comfort woman'? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.htmlOnly then he apologised when the international communities comdamned on him http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795448/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/japans-pm-apologizes-wwii-era-sex-slaves/His view on Class A war criminals were not war criminal based on domestic law and also tried to change japanese textbooks to downplay any 'negative words' with these crimes If japan don't want to atone for the sin, then what is happening right now is their own doing? There are tonnes of reasons for china to be so upset about these actions now, Japan purchasing the island GAVE China a reason to go so aggressive on it. Then a few weeks later it was some days that reminded Chinese of the japanese invasion, then recently the shrine is visited. Isn't it the same with Japan? why suddenly purchasing the island? political interest. Does the reason even matter? you call the behavior is not valid, that's coming from a not so valid action from Japan itself. Of cause China is not happy about it, but you are forgetting it's not just China, Taiwan is also not happy about it and even Korea is siding with China. Do you see any other country is siding with Japan saying the purchase is a reasonable one and won't cause any disruption in the region? How can you call our action is causing the destablising when Japan is the one who started it in the first place? If I warned you that I will not forgive you if you ever take a cent from a mutual fund of ours, and you just went ahead and take the whole fund out right in front of my face and claiming that you don't understand why I act so mad, who is the one causing all these disruption? Are you seriously going to blame on ME? there is no way you can deny japan started this whole heated hatred against japan in China itself. Who was the one to turn the relationship back to zero when both parties tried hard to repair the damage in the relationship The violence protests in China are all sparked by this, Chinese stars and government constantly tell everyone to protest peacefully. But China is huge, not everyone is well educated, they don't behave well when they realise Japan is acting as if the island is theirs and then seeing other events like visiting the shrine happening. I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor. Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind. On October 20 2012 18:29 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. Literally no body sensible who isn't taking part in these actions condone it, the exact same population also denounces Japan's recent actions. It's a case where the vast majority denounce violence and irresponsibility of portions of its own population as well as the actions of a foreign entity. China isn't so intent on these actions now, believe me, leading up to the islands being bought there was steady progress between the relations of the two countries, once the Japanese government announced it people went ape shit. Many people see it as intentional politics to appeal to extremist factions in Japan seeing as they timed it right before an election and then subsequently made controversial remarks as well as visited the shrines. It's really hard to paint China as the aggravating force of this specific event here. You can obviously still fault those who are irresponsible and for the current generation who should know better to do more to hold back the anti-Japanese sentiment. No body thinks there is any validity of violence or rioting in China, literally no body, no one condones it, the public denounces it, notable figures denounce it, no politician condones it, the riot police cracked down and censored the crack down so hard no one even caught sight of what the fuck happened. Obviously this is also paralleled with the same commitment to denounce Japan's recent actions, but you have to understand that does not translate into support for extremist action. Similar to how the US public denouncing extremist Islamic groups does not translate into the US public condoning crimes to be committed against Islam, and it certainly doesn't translate into support for violence and rioting at home. Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. the problem right now isn't 'army presence', China doesn't even want to appear to be looking aggressive because it wants to expand while looking all friendly and peacefully. If you are arguing with China's aggressiveness in its international politics, you should look at USA too. I know how much concern has been growing over China's military and economic presence, which country wouldn't? But none of this matters in this case, that's out of this topic. What I was saying is Japan certainly did not act peacefully unless you regard purchasing an island in dispute is a peaceful act. This action itself is the seed of this whole rioting and disruption in the region. It wasn't just to China, it was also offensive to Taiwan, except that Taiwan reacted much more subtly (by releasing stamps with the painting of the island) Do you still think army presence meant more aggressiveness? Japan was the one with the small army yet with an extremely aggressive foreign policy in this case. Japan was the one to constantly visiting the shrine, even if China warned them not to do so every year. Would a country committed to peace do such a provoking action? I sympathize dude, but it does matter, it's central to the issue, it's militant behavior. What right do you think you have to warn Japan not to visit their war shrine. China has no right whatsoever, they're completely out of line to do it, but they do it anyway. It is provocative, aggressive, and militant to "warn" them against doing so. I personally don't have any problem with Japan visiting their war shrine and bowing, yes even with 14 class A war criminals. Bowing to their war shrine doesn't automatically mean "Yeah, you kicked China's ass and it was awesome," it could be their way of remembering and acknowledging a part of their Japanese past, horrors included. Yes, perhaps there are some lunatics who still think it's awesome in this day and age, but they aren't representative of the Japanese people or their government. China has no right to then conclude that Japan "has alot to learn from Germany" and all that rhetoric, they're out of line saying it. Sometimes I think the subsequent generations of Germans after the events of WW2 have lived with too much national guilt. Anyway, whatever, that's beside the point. Saying stuff like that is provocative and it's really just about starting a fight. I'm fine with saying Japan shouldn't have attempted to purchase the island since it's under dispute. I think that's reasonable, and maybe you're right about that. I don't think China's policy vis-a-vis Japan is particularly reasonable, nor the public outcry, and I really worry for humanity's future when people react to stuff like this. Anywho I'd better crash it's late (early) here. + Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 20:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 20:21 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 19:55 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:
I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor.
Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind.
Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. On the issue of aggression: The only Chinese military presences stationed over seas are humanitarian missions that's been ongoing in coercion with UN peace keeping in places like Somalia and consists of a very small force. China extends its influence on neighboring countries yes, but in the words of American analysts: "When Iran extends its influence on neighboring countries, they are destabilizing the region with their influence. When America invades a country and destroy its infrastructure, they are stabilizing the region from undesirable domestic influence." Nothing about China's foreign policy is exercised beyond the rights of any developing nation, of course unless you agree with the American Veto on UN resolution "Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right." in 1980. These "complaints" being made have direct conflicts of interest and shouldn't be taken seriously, because similar claims to authority are being made by American analysts who insist that continued "status quo" of American influence should be taken for granted. So it's fine for the leading nation to continue its existing status quo, yet it's not okay for developing countries, be it China or India or Pakistan or Sudan to exert their influence on neighboring countries. I take it you're from China? Just curious, you're very quick to defend it. Any hypocrisy on the part of other countries isn't inherently validating to China's foreign policy. I'm fully against the notion of American exceptionalism, I think it's ridiculous. Actually China's foreign policy in Africa is very contentious right now, it's economic hegemony, divorced from any notion of moral obligation. They're dictating one-sided terms of aid in exchange for resources. In fact, China has dictated one-sided terms of trade with Canada for raw resources (and as an aside, the guy that's currently in power in our country thinks it's a fantastic opportunity to make a quick buck). And conflicts of interest are common on the international stage. As such, they aren't a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate volume of complaints against China. You mentioned India, that reminds me of a couple weeks ago when India tested missiles (which I didn't like), and China issued the following statements: ""India should not overestimate its strength. Even if it has missiles that could reach most parts of China, that does not mean it will gain anything from being arrogant during disputes with China. India should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable. For the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China," "India should also not overstate the value of its Western allies and the profits it could gain from participating in a containment of China. If it equates long range strategic missiles with deterrence of China, and stirs up further hostility, it could be sorely mistaken." These aren't statements that reflect a peaceful mentality. Well are these not the same levels of statements which were thought to be sensible by any western state if it was declared in defense of say the increasing military power of Iran or Lebannon or principle opposition to American influence? China isn't making open military threats and exercising those threats like Israel is, and countries which border those controlling nuclear weapons showing open hostility often make statements such as these. China's enterprising in Africa is contentious, but the only reason why China / Indonesia / India has any grasp of African natural resources right now is usually because there was previous military presence which ruined the region's infrastructure and they are unwilling to co-operate with the previous aggressors - usually being western interests. Take the example of Southern Sudan, Chevron dug the unity well and there was clear conflict of interest which drove civil war displacing millions and ruining the lives of even more, after the dusts settled the government became reluctant to establish trade agreements with those who instigated said violence. If you apply the same standards of conduct in coercion with internationally law there is very little that China does which is out of line. I do not defend China's government I think it's about the most important principle opponent of social progress in China, however I think in this specific scenario it's instead the failing to establish and enforce international laws, specifically ones concerning the rights of developing nations, which is repeatedly vetoed by the US and western interests where China has always voted in favor of. Take for example the amount of UN resolutions that have been vetoed by the US regarding the rights of developing nations, note that this isn't to discredit the US government in terms of a governing body, governments are not humanitarian organizations, and if you subscribe to the "realpolitik" methodology of seeking the maximum benefit for your own constituency then the US government is quite successful. But this is the state of enforcing the rights of developing nations: 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1984 Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 2008 Calls for a right of development for nations. This is the state of what is internationally accepted, China can not compete with other countries which operate under the assumptions that these fundamental rights do not exist who are already exploiting the market. The status quo is indefensible but China did not contribute to opposing such legislature supporting the rights of developing nations, quite the opposite China has been a proponent of the rights of developing nations. Often in self interest sure as China is / was a developing country. But it just surprises me that people think China is acting out of line when the line is set so low internationally that you legalize criminality. I'll read this tomorrow morning.. so.. sleepy.. No, visiting the shrine had never led to China sending ships close to Japan, China people responded by not purchasing japanese goods for a period of time, not inviting Japanese stars to China performance, or Chinese star not attending anything in Japan, punishing them financially. Always. China as a victim of the Japanese invasion should have the say to tell Japan NOT to do so simply because it reminds China of what have happened. While you might feel ok with Japan visiting the shrine, it might really be japan trying to acknowledge their past, this is not how China feels, not how the Chinese feels about it. for example, you don't go on making a documentary of a raped woman case without asking the consent of the woman (or her parents if she was murdered). It's the same logic. Japan has a PM who thinks class A war criminals are not war criminals according to domestic law, now that might not represent Japan's opinion, it says a lot when a spoke person representing Japan speaking out such opinion, especially when he was elected. No you don't have the right to dictate to someone how they should peacefully act. If Japan is doing it peacefully then China has no right to "warn" them to stop. You don't get to decide what someone else should or shouldn't be able to peacefully do based on what offends you (particularly when the offense is mostly due to the ambiguous meaning you ascribe to it). Making a documentary about a raped woman directly impacts her. You've decided the Japanese visiting their war shrine impacts you. There's a difference. Yeah, the Japanese PM shouldn't have denied the sex slaves, but people are making it sound like Japan hasn't apologized. Japan issued a formal apology to sex slaves in 1993. The PM should be condemned for his comments, and he has been condemned for his comments. Japan as a nation shouldn't necessarily have to start apologizing all over again. In my opinion Korea is wrong to demand that Japan apologize and suggest the emperor isn't welcome until he does. What does it help doing that? At some point the world really is going to have to move on from this. On October 20 2012 21:42 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 21:09 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 20:33 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 18:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. look at what the japanese government has done to repay the war crime http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/nmnwe96.htmlDo you know the Japanese PM denied wartime 'comfort woman'? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.htmlOnly then he apologised when the international communities comdamned on him http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795448/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/japans-pm-apologizes-wwii-era-sex-slaves/His view on Class A war criminals were not war criminal based on domestic law and also tried to change japanese textbooks to downplay any 'negative words' with these crimes If japan don't want to atone for the sin, then what is happening right now is their own doing? There are tonnes of reasons for china to be so upset about these actions now, Japan purchasing the island GAVE China a reason to go so aggressive on it. Then a few weeks later it was some days that reminded Chinese of the japanese invasion, then recently the shrine is visited. Isn't it the same with Japan? why suddenly purchasing the island? political interest. Does the reason even matter? you call the behavior is not valid, that's coming from a not so valid action from Japan itself. Of cause China is not happy about it, but you are forgetting it's not just China, Taiwan is also not happy about it and even Korea is siding with China. Do you see any other country is siding with Japan saying the purchase is a reasonable one and won't cause any disruption in the region? How can you call our action is causing the destablising when Japan is the one who started it in the first place? If I warned you that I will not forgive you if you ever take a cent from a mutual fund of ours, and you just went ahead and take the whole fund out right in front of my face and claiming that you don't understand why I act so mad, who is the one causing all these disruption? Are you seriously going to blame on ME? there is no way you can deny japan started this whole heated hatred against japan in China itself. Who was the one to turn the relationship back to zero when both parties tried hard to repair the damage in the relationship The violence protests in China are all sparked by this, Chinese stars and government constantly tell everyone to protest peacefully. But China is huge, not everyone is well educated, they don't behave well when they realise Japan is acting as if the island is theirs and then seeing other events like visiting the shrine happening. I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor. Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind. On October 20 2012 18:29 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 17:41 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 15:37 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 05:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 20 2012 04:12 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 03:48 Silvanel wrote:On October 20 2012 03:32 ETisME wrote:On October 20 2012 02:30 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah i tottaly agree with ZERG_RUSSIAN, i dont get why this hatred towards Japanese poeple should be justified. Theres tons unresolved crimes and tensions all over the world, either all "victims" in the world have the right to hatred and violence or none of them. I prefere the latter. The world will be a better place if we try to forgive.
Ps. I was really dissapointed by that remark by KwarK, glad i am not the only one. the world would be a stupid one if the country fail to acknowledge its mistake and downplaying it to its citizen. You obviously know very little about by how much Japan downplay some of their actions in their textbooks as well as visiting the shrine that is set up for rememberance of the soldiers of the imperial japan. If they need to be forgiven, they would need to show their determination of wanting to be forgiven. Maybe you are still young but forgiving DOES require one to make an effort, and not trying to downplay it and hope the other party get less upset and "forgive" him. And OP should also consider this on why China did not really take a strong approach to turn down the protest: China's economy had been facing a slowdown and any factories are shut down due to China is in the stage of economy restructuring into less dependant on manufacturing. The amount of corruption in the government as well as income disequality have both caused a lot of social unrest in China. It's a good chance for China to release their anger etc onto something that can unite it's people together, rather than putting it out on the government. But they have taken some steps in limiting the size of the protests, just not that much Japan isnt the only nor the biggest "World Criminal" that didnt atone for its sins. But when the other matters like that are being brought up on this very board the general response is "get over with it", so thats my response to Chinese "get over it" . I dont see how its ok for Chinese to show hatred and violence, but (for example) Armenians, Polish or Chechnyans are being ridiculed when they simply complain about similiar matters. One very common view from the Chinese is that China had been too soft on international political positions. Look back to China's history: It lost lands, resources from opium war where uk tried to force open up opium trade. Then invaded by the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900 (in the name of protecting their people against the rebell group), lost lands and treasures, women raped etc then faced revolution Then WW2 loss from Japan China now has the economic power to stand up in the international stage, people EXPECT China to speak out to these continuous insult to the Chinese history, especially the visiting of shrine and obviously the island purchase is a big FU to China's face. Riots are one way to damage Japanese' economy and it has been successful. Wen Jiabao especially warned Japan NOT to do so a few years ago, which is one possible explaination why China is behaving so aggressively in this case. if "let it go" is the right attitude, then I am sure Taiwan would be first to "let it go" seeing how good relation they have with the Japanese. Whether they should "let it go" is upto the party affected, not by some other cases happened somewhere else in another time. So China destroying the lives of individuals who had nothing to do with it is okay? I understand Japan has had a horrible past. I wasn't us, and we are sorry, and we want to atone, but seriously, can we stop what's going on right now? Let's get along =/. The chinese aren't only angry about the past, they are also angry at how the jp government and people are dealing with this hurtful history between the 2 nations. Doing nothing does not mean they cannot do anything about their stance on the past. It might make them go back and study why Chinese are so anti japanese, they might go to the government and question their stance and their approach to how to resolve this issue and even why the fuck would you go out and buy up the island when it is surely going to cause dispute? It's a fricking stupidly naive way to get political vote. It's a big Fuck you to China's face. The Chinese, taiwan both are hurt in this action. If the japanese really want to atone and understand the history, where are the protest against this island purchase action? Visiting the shrine had been an issue always, did the local japanese really ever question this action and caused any change? if you are japanese, shouldn't you be blaming on the government stance and take on these issues. The problem is there isn't ANYONE in Japan who is doing ANYTHING about it and simply asking us to stop. China and Japan relationship was actually getting better a few years before and then this happened. Surely a country where it has more room to speak out and protest should be reacting strongly if they really want to atone their sin? I think the Japanese have acknowledged their misdeeds pretty well. I posted a link already in this thread, perhaps I'll post it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_JapanBut putting all that aside, what if Japan decides it doesn't wish to atone? How much protest and provocative posturing becomes justified? How far should you go to demand an apology? Commit humanity to another series of violent acts? Shall we go to war to demand apologies over a previous war? And why is China so intent on these actions now? Is it because you have an economic interest at stake? Japan had two atomic bombs dropped on it in the summer of 1945, the only examples of fission/fusion bombs being used in war in human history, the effects of which are still being felt, so it's not like they haven't suffered. I understand the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was absolutely unconscionable, but I don't see China's behavior as being particularly valid at the moment, I think they're using Japan's misdeeds as a pretext to get something they want and are apparently content destabilizing the region in the process. Literally no body sensible who isn't taking part in these actions condone it, the exact same population also denounces Japan's recent actions. It's a case where the vast majority denounce violence and irresponsibility of portions of its own population as well as the actions of a foreign entity. China isn't so intent on these actions now, believe me, leading up to the islands being bought there was steady progress between the relations of the two countries, once the Japanese government announced it people went ape shit. Many people see it as intentional politics to appeal to extremist factions in Japan seeing as they timed it right before an election and then subsequently made controversial remarks as well as visited the shrines. It's really hard to paint China as the aggravating force of this specific event here. You can obviously still fault those who are irresponsible and for the current generation who should know better to do more to hold back the anti-Japanese sentiment. No body thinks there is any validity of violence or rioting in China, literally no body, no one condones it, the public denounces it, notable figures denounce it, no politician condones it, the riot police cracked down and censored the crack down so hard no one even caught sight of what the fuck happened. Obviously this is also paralleled with the same commitment to denounce Japan's recent actions, but you have to understand that does not translate into support for extremist action. Similar to how the US public denouncing extremist Islamic groups does not translate into the US public condoning crimes to be committed against Islam, and it certainly doesn't translate into support for violence and rioting at home. Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. the problem right now isn't 'army presence', China doesn't even want to appear to be looking aggressive because it wants to expand while looking all friendly and peacefully. If you are arguing with China's aggressiveness in its international politics, you should look at USA too. I know how much concern has been growing over China's military and economic presence, which country wouldn't? But none of this matters in this case, that's out of this topic. What I was saying is Japan certainly did not act peacefully unless you regard purchasing an island in dispute is a peaceful act. This action itself is the seed of this whole rioting and disruption in the region. It wasn't just to China, it was also offensive to Taiwan, except that Taiwan reacted much more subtly (by releasing stamps with the painting of the island) Do you still think army presence meant more aggressiveness? Japan was the one with the small army yet with an extremely aggressive foreign policy in this case. Japan was the one to constantly visiting the shrine, even if China warned them not to do so every year. Would a country committed to peace do such a provoking action? I sympathize dude, but it does matter, it's central to the issue, it's militant behavior. What right do you think you have to warn Japan not to visit their war shrine. China has no right whatsoever, they're completely out of line to do it, but they do it anyway. It is provocative, aggressive, and militant to "warn" them against doing so. I personally don't have any problem with Japan visiting their war shrine and bowing, yes even with 14 class A war criminals. Bowing to their war shrine doesn't automatically mean "Yeah, you kicked China's ass and it was awesome," it could be their way of remembering and acknowledging a part of their Japanese past, horrors included. Yes, perhaps there are some lunatics who still think it's awesome in this day and age, but they aren't representative of the Japanese people or their government. China has no right to then conclude that Japan "has alot to learn from Germany" and all that rhetoric, they're out of line saying it. Sometimes I think the subsequent generations of Germans after the events of WW2 have lived with too much national guilt. Anyway, whatever, that's beside the point. Saying stuff like that is provocative and it's really just about starting a fight. I'm fine with saying Japan shouldn't have attempted to purchase the island since it's under dispute. I think that's reasonable, and maybe you're right about that. I don't think China's policy vis-a-vis Japan is particularly reasonable, nor the public outcry, and I really worry for humanity's future when people react to stuff like this. Anywho I'd better crash it's late (early) here. + Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 20:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 20:21 sevencck wrote:On October 20 2012 19:55 Caihead wrote:On October 20 2012 19:37 sevencck wrote:
I wrote out a long reply but I can condense it into a few sentences. Japan has no military presence, and for almost 70 years has shown the world that it is committed to peace. China now has one of the world's largest armies, and has been rather aggressive in its foreign policy with virtually every other country on Earth over the past several years. There are numerous international diplomats complaining about China's behavior. As I said, I was providing links but there are simply too many examples. I urge you to look into it for yourself. My point is that looking at the situation strictly as an outside observer I don't believe Japan would be difficult to reason with. I don't believe China respects the international community sufficiently to respect a hypothetical judgement made in Japan's favor.
Did Japan commit barbaric war crimes against China? Yes, I'd certainly argue they did. At the moment Japan is acting peacefully, and China is not. You've really highlighted this in the bolded statement you've written. I don't know if Japan will ever be able to meaningfully apologize to China for what they did, but the anti-Japanese sentiment coming out of China is certainly not helping any kind of brotherhood of mankind.
Interesting. I'm not sure I have a reply other than I've thought about what you've written. I have some doubts but I guess we'll see how things play out. On the issue of aggression: The only Chinese military presences stationed over seas are humanitarian missions that's been ongoing in coercion with UN peace keeping in places like Somalia and consists of a very small force. China extends its influence on neighboring countries yes, but in the words of American analysts: "When Iran extends its influence on neighboring countries, they are destabilizing the region with their influence. When America invades a country and destroy its infrastructure, they are stabilizing the region from undesirable domestic influence." Nothing about China's foreign policy is exercised beyond the rights of any developing nation, of course unless you agree with the American Veto on UN resolution "Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right." in 1980. These "complaints" being made have direct conflicts of interest and shouldn't be taken seriously, because similar claims to authority are being made by American analysts who insist that continued "status quo" of American influence should be taken for granted. So it's fine for the leading nation to continue its existing status quo, yet it's not okay for developing countries, be it China or India or Pakistan or Sudan to exert their influence on neighboring countries. I take it you're from China? Just curious, you're very quick to defend it. Any hypocrisy on the part of other countries isn't inherently validating to China's foreign policy. I'm fully against the notion of American exceptionalism, I think it's ridiculous. Actually China's foreign policy in Africa is very contentious right now, it's economic hegemony, divorced from any notion of moral obligation. They're dictating one-sided terms of aid in exchange for resources. In fact, China has dictated one-sided terms of trade with Canada for raw resources (and as an aside, the guy that's currently in power in our country thinks it's a fantastic opportunity to make a quick buck). And conflicts of interest are common on the international stage. As such, they aren't a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate volume of complaints against China. You mentioned India, that reminds me of a couple weeks ago when India tested missiles (which I didn't like), and China issued the following statements: ""India should not overestimate its strength. Even if it has missiles that could reach most parts of China, that does not mean it will gain anything from being arrogant during disputes with China. India should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable. For the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China," "India should also not overstate the value of its Western allies and the profits it could gain from participating in a containment of China. If it equates long range strategic missiles with deterrence of China, and stirs up further hostility, it could be sorely mistaken." These aren't statements that reflect a peaceful mentality. Well are these not the same levels of statements which were thought to be sensible by any western state if it was declared in defense of say the increasing military power of Iran or Lebannon or principle opposition to American influence? China isn't making open military threats and exercising those threats like Israel is, and countries which border those controlling nuclear weapons showing open hostility often make statements such as these. China's enterprising in Africa is contentious, but the only reason why China / Indonesia / India has any grasp of African natural resources right now is usually because there was previous military presence which ruined the region's infrastructure and they are unwilling to co-operate with the previous aggressors - usually being western interests. Take the example of Southern Sudan, Chevron dug the unity well and there was clear conflict of interest which drove civil war displacing millions and ruining the lives of even more, after the dusts settled the government became reluctant to establish trade agreements with those who instigated said violence. If you apply the same standards of conduct in coercion with internationally law there is very little that China does which is out of line. I do not defend China's government I think it's about the most important principle opponent of social progress in China, however I think in this specific scenario it's instead the failing to establish and enforce international laws, specifically ones concerning the rights of developing nations, which is repeatedly vetoed by the US and western interests where China has always voted in favor of. Take for example the amount of UN resolutions that have been vetoed by the US regarding the rights of developing nations, note that this isn't to discredit the US government in terms of a governing body, governments are not humanitarian organizations, and if you subscribe to the "realpolitik" methodology of seeking the maximum benefit for your own constituency then the US government is quite successful. But this is the state of enforcing the rights of developing nations: 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1984 Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 2008 Calls for a right of development for nations. This is the state of what is internationally accepted, China can not compete with other countries which operate under the assumptions that these fundamental rights do not exist who are already exploiting the market. The status quo is indefensible but China did not contribute to opposing such legislature supporting the rights of developing nations, quite the opposite China has been a proponent of the rights of developing nations. Often in self interest sure as China is / was a developing country. But it just surprises me that people think China is acting out of line when the line is set so low internationally that you legalize criminality. I'll read this tomorrow morning.. so.. sleepy.. Erm... they do in fact acknowledge the actions of those war criminals in a context which offends even those with in Japan itself who see it as a return to policies which lead them to the war in the first place, it's not in the context of what you suggest. If that was the case it would be fine. This is like saying that it's out of line for any victim of a crime to to demand of the criminal or his relatives / future relations be not be allowed to glorify his crimes or celebrate them. It's absolutely ridiculous if you apply the context of war crimes. You could look this up and look at why people have legitimate reasons to be angry. No, the context isn't clear cut. China is not prepared to make a distinction between a Japanese minister commemorating an anniversary of the end of the war, bowing to those who served Japan, or merely honoring a tradition to visit the shrine and reflecting on the horrors of the war. You say it would be fine in the context I suggested? Oh really? There's no evidence of this, China simply says don't do it or else. Your analogy isn't quite apt either because Japan isn't unequivocally glorifying their crimes or celebrating them by visiting the war shrine, you've made that judgement. Also it is out of line for a victim to demand a criminal's relatives/future relations not be allowed to peacefully glorify his crimes. The victim has a right to demand justice and see the criminal punished for their crime, they don't have a right to demand some future relative can't glorify it (especially when to compare meaningfully that glorification would be in the home of the criminal or the criminal's relative). Unless I am wrong, everytime the shrine is visited, thousands of people go anti japan mode in China. Does that not mean this action causes stress to the general chinese public? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine Look up what the shrine is dedicated to, and what does a visit mean, especially for a political visit (which is why it is sometimes disguised as a private visit). Using my example again, if the raped girl was murdered, the parents of the girl are against making the documentary, no matter HOW peacefully you are making the documentary, you are still not able to make it because you don't have the permission to do so. maybe the act is peaceful but it doesn't mean it isn't offensive. In Hong Kong, there were marches against chinese people coming in Hong Kong and taking up resources very peacefully, it doesn't mean Chinese won't get insulted. The link I sent to you before showed that Japan has refused several cases to repay war survivors and former sex slaves. Mind you, I am not even pro-china in many matters, there are tonnes of conflicts between China and hong kong but the way how Japan treat and do things often provoke negative respond from it's nearby neighbors. Why would you put the blame on regional disruption onto China when Japan had been doing political visit to the shrine (which China and Korea are strongly against) and even after purchasing an island dispute, you still think China is the one to calm down? How about Japan stop paying political visit to the shrine, back down on purchasing the island and don't do any of these "right on your face" type of action? To move on, at least one country should show more responsible with what their action is causing.
To begin with your example doesn't really relate to what it means when someone vists the Yasukuni Shrine. It's more like asking people to stop going to church because of the Crusades in the middle east. Also majority of politicians try to avoid paying a visit to the shrine when they are in office. The current PM even urged its cabinet to not visit the shrine recently. The problem with the shrine is the fact that most people refuse to accept a different ideology(Japanese Shintoism) and can't see a different viewpoint on the matter.
|
On October 21 2012 15:16 bioniK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault. How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly?
World War 2? The Nanjing Massacre? Unit 731? The Three Alls Policy? Occupying Manchukuo for 10 years? Korea for 50 years? Taiwan for 50 years? The Bataan Death March? Comfort Women?
Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation?
Their job? No, of course it's not their job. And China is by no means belligerent towards Japan--no nation has displayed unprovoked belligerence towards Japan since Kublai Khan in the 1200s.
All I'm saying is that when Japan complains to Chinese authorities about protests and the general ill-will Chinese people feel towards the Japanese government and companies, perhaps they might want to realize that it's not the Chinese government's job to make the people feel neutral about Japan either.
If Japan wants the ill-will to go away because they feel their current interests are hurt by the continued protests and informal boycotts, the ball is in their court. The Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop the outrage.
|
On October 21 2012 15:16 bioniK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault. How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly? Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation?
I think you are confusing 'justice' with 'causation.' Japan's failure to win forgiveness is why the Chinese are - and will continue - to be belligerent towards them for the forseeable future. But there is no 'justice' in forcing them to do so - they have no moral obligation to 'make up' for what their predecessors did.
|
On October 21 2012 15:30 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 15:16 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault. How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly? World War 2? The Nanjing Massacre? Unit 731? The Three Alls Policy? Occupying Manchukuo for 10 years? Korea for 50 years? Taiwan for 50 years? The Bataan Death March? Comfort Women? Show nested quote +Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation? Their job? No, of course it's not their job. And China is by no means belligerent towards Japan--no nation has displayed unprovoked belligerence towards Japan since Kublai Khan in the 1200s. All I'm saying is that when Japan complains to Chinese authorities about protests and the general ill-will Chinese people feel towards the Japanese government and companies, perhaps they might want to realize that it's not the Chinese government's job to make the people feel neutral about Japan either. If Japan wants the ill-will to go away because they feel their current interests are hurt by the continued protests and informal boycotts, the ball is in their court. The Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop the outrage.
Are you saying that Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop civil unrest in their country? And its really sad that a generation that was almost completely unaffected by the Japanese are expressing ill-will towards them based on what had happened 70 years ago.
|
On October 21 2012 15:51 bioniK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 15:30 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 15:16 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault. How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly? World War 2? The Nanjing Massacre? Unit 731? The Three Alls Policy? Occupying Manchukuo for 10 years? Korea for 50 years? Taiwan for 50 years? The Bataan Death March? Comfort Women? Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation? Their job? No, of course it's not their job. And China is by no means belligerent towards Japan--no nation has displayed unprovoked belligerence towards Japan since Kublai Khan in the 1200s. All I'm saying is that when Japan complains to Chinese authorities about protests and the general ill-will Chinese people feel towards the Japanese government and companies, perhaps they might want to realize that it's not the Chinese government's job to make the people feel neutral about Japan either. If Japan wants the ill-will to go away because they feel their current interests are hurt by the continued protests and informal boycotts, the ball is in their court. The Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop the outrage. Are you saying that Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop civil unrest in their country? And its really sad that a generation that was almost completely unaffected by the Japanese are expressing ill-will towards them based on what had happened 70 years ago.
In the grand scheme of things, 70 years isn't a long time.
It's going to take, at the minimum, 100-150 years for a 'national trauma' of this sort to stop mattering, and even then it won't stop mattering for everybody, just the main body of the population.
|
On October 21 2012 15:55 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 15:51 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 15:30 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 15:16 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:43 Shady Sands wrote:On October 21 2012 14:25 bioniK wrote:On October 21 2012 14:21 Orek wrote:
Given the chance, every single nation in the world wants non-allied neighbors/potential enemies to reduce its military presense while keeping your own military power. Nothing is new that U.S. wants China, Russia, N.Korea etc. to reduce its military presense while U.S. keeps by far the biggest military presense in the world. Nothing is new that China wants U.S., Japan, S.Korea etc. to reduce its military power while China grows its own. Nothing is new that Japan wants China, N.Korea, Russia etc. to reduce military influence in the Far East while Japan maintains alliance with the mighty U.S. As ridiculous as it sounds, what Shady Sands says isn't new, and similar claim exists from Japan to China as well, both of which aren't taken seriously for obvious reasons. "I stay strong, you stay weak." was/is/will be the name of the game until human society develops further in the next centuries. "I stay weak, and I trust you." unfortunately doesn't work today. I figured people already knew this which was why I was confused as to why the OP had such a strong stance in the matter. Its only common sense when nations of conflicting ideologies would want to preserve and protect their interests right? So how reasonable is to to ask one nation to give up their ability to do so? Because that nation has used its military irresponsibly? The question is: how can Japan win forgiveness/win the hearts of China? I laid out 3 actions which will (to most Chinese) permanently remove Japan as a threat/historical enemy. If Japan can't do it, it's not China's fault. How exactly has Japan used its military irresponsibly? World War 2? The Nanjing Massacre? Unit 731? The Three Alls Policy? Occupying Manchukuo for 10 years? Korea for 50 years? Taiwan for 50 years? The Bataan Death March? Comfort Women? Is it really their job to win over the hearts of the Chinese people at the cost of the ability to protect themselves against a belligerent nation? Their job? No, of course it's not their job. And China is by no means belligerent towards Japan--no nation has displayed unprovoked belligerence towards Japan since Kublai Khan in the 1200s. All I'm saying is that when Japan complains to Chinese authorities about protests and the general ill-will Chinese people feel towards the Japanese government and companies, perhaps they might want to realize that it's not the Chinese government's job to make the people feel neutral about Japan either. If Japan wants the ill-will to go away because they feel their current interests are hurt by the continued protests and informal boycotts, the ball is in their court. The Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop the outrage. Are you saying that Chinese authorities have no obligation to stop civil unrest in their country? And its really sad that a generation that was almost completely unaffected by the Japanese are expressing ill-will towards them based on what had happened 70 years ago. In the grand scheme of things, 70 years isn't a long time. It's going to take, at the minimum, 100-150 years for a 'national trauma' of this sort to stop mattering, and even then it won't stop mattering for everybody, just the main body of the population.
Maybe, hopefully it stops mattering at one point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
