|
On September 19 2012 12:09 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Sex slavery is not present in modern Korea. Where are you getting these ridiculous notion from? (prostitution is in modern Korea) It is disgusting because it happened, I assume you don't find pedophilia revolting as well?
Naivety and ad hom?
Stay classy, Cattlecruiser
|
On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:On September 18 2012 17:09 sharkie wrote:
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Yes, they have committed atrocious things. But what country in the world has not? Japan's Rapes and Germany's Holocaust are "the most horrible" ones because they have lost the most recent war.
But we are talking about a country here who has SPENT BILLIONS of dollars supporting other countries in need. You think without Japan Southeast Asia would be as prosperous as it is today? It wouldn't be.
Southeast Asia loves to hate on Japan, yet they still have welcomed and KEEP welcoming Japan's money.
And no, they not only help with money but also by being helpful. How many nature catastrophes did we have in the last 10 years? Tons, from tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. And which country has sent the most help in MONEY, RESOURCES and WORKERS in the world? Yes, it is Japan.
Just ask New Zealand. When the big earthquake happened in Japan, most helpers were still in New Zealand because they suffered huge damage from a earthquake prior to the big one.
Yes Japan's past is shameful, I feel huge remorse and the huge majority of Japan feels the same. So I ask again, why is there so much hate for Japan? Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's. It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field. Why is there so much hate for Japan? Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed. Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅.
k Which korea? With your logic north and south korea have equal claim to the islands.
|
On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:On September 18 2012 17:09 sharkie wrote:
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Yes, they have committed atrocious things. But what country in the world has not? Japan's Rapes and Germany's Holocaust are "the most horrible" ones because they have lost the most recent war.
But we are talking about a country here who has SPENT BILLIONS of dollars supporting other countries in need. You think without Japan Southeast Asia would be as prosperous as it is today? It wouldn't be.
Southeast Asia loves to hate on Japan, yet they still have welcomed and KEEP welcoming Japan's money.
And no, they not only help with money but also by being helpful. How many nature catastrophes did we have in the last 10 years? Tons, from tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. And which country has sent the most help in MONEY, RESOURCES and WORKERS in the world? Yes, it is Japan.
Just ask New Zealand. When the big earthquake happened in Japan, most helpers were still in New Zealand because they suffered huge damage from a earthquake prior to the big one.
Yes Japan's past is shameful, I feel huge remorse and the huge majority of Japan feels the same. So I ask again, why is there so much hate for Japan? Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's. It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field. Why is there so much hate for Japan? Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed. Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅.
Which island Usan-do (우산, 于山島/亐山島) meant at various records is disputed. It's iffy that it meant current Dokdo/Takeshima. All the name mix ups are really unfortunate for Korea.
Another incident in 1951 where Korean government appealed the sovereignty of Parangdo (波浪島,パランとう,파랑도,Parangdo) alongside with Dokdo hurts Korean credibility because Parangdo is an imaginary island still to this date.
Requests From Korea July 19, 1951
1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."
In my first post, I included the full detail of how Dokdo/Takeshima was not included to the area Japan gave up.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough.
I understand the sentiment why Korea wants to defend the sovereignty of Dokdo. To be fair, Japan had always been the aggressor side historically. Never do I remember the history where Korea tried to invade Japan. That said, it has nothing to do with territorial dispute nevertheless.
Showing a picture of a soccer player who disregarded IOC/FIFA policy of no political statements by athletes and players at London Olympics never helps as this is not "who is louder contest" either.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/fifa-studies-south-korea-flag-125435963--oly.html
|
On September 19 2012 12:30 Quintum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:23 skatblast wrote:
chill out before america settles it for you Is there any oil known to be on or around these islands?
Oh yeah! Found oil there around the late 60's. Before that time, both China and Japan didn't give a single fuck about that tiny bit of land.
|
On September 19 2012 13:07 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:30 Quintum_ wrote:On September 19 2012 12:23 skatblast wrote:
chill out before america settles it for you Is there any oil known to be on or around these islands? Oh yeah! Found oil there around the late 60's. Before that time, both China and Japan didn't give a single fuck about that tiny bit of land.
You know what would be a mindfuck? If the US Geological Survey faked the whole oil find to sow the seeds of hatred between China and Japan
|
Chinese citizens have every right to feel this way, though I don't defend their actions.
Japan's track record is fair game. Were they not demilitarized by the Allies, you can only imagine the interesting events that could have occurred over the last 67 years.
International disputes are always interesting to me (like Russia vs Georgia). American disputes are so boring, and one sided.
|
On September 19 2012 12:09 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:58 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:49 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. Heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that? Prostitution is an optional occupation, and a choice made by desperate set members of all complex societies. I have never refuted that. Sex slavery is a disgusting practice that goes beyond the monetary exchange. Sex slaves were subject to extremely grotesque acts and inhuman fetishes of the Japanese. As for the heritage situation, Dokdo was clearly given to the Korean government after the war by the Japanese surrender terms. It isn't named after Koguryo it is named after Gojoseon, a predating dynasty that spanned much larger area than the Koguryo. Koreans are not interested in expanding our territory, but only to sustain the little of it we have left. Also, we associate ourselves to the Joseon dynasty as we have sustained an isolationist stance after the founding of Joseon. Wait.. so what is it? Dokdo is territory conceded to Korea by terms of a treaty resulting from the conquest of Japan, or it is Korean because they claimed it in 1435 and it is rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Those two concepts, though both assuming Korean control of the islands, are radically different. One is a legalistic argument, the other is nationalist sentiment desiring to defend the glory of the nation. One bases territorial claims on a principle of international law and a rejection of competing historical claims, the other claims territory by right of having occupied said territory intermittently in history. Thank you for correcting me re: Koguryo, Gojoseon. And for many prostitutes, their occupation is not a choice. The Japanese history of comfort women is particularly disgusting because of the open acknowledgement of the situation by Japanese authorities, not because it happened. The fact sex slavery happens is sad and disgusting, but unfortunately present in many societies, including modern Korea. Both reasons are behind our fervor for Dokdo, it belongs to our government and people because it it our heritage as well as reparation for the Japanese desecration. Sex slavery is not present in modern Korea. Where are you getting these ridiculous notion from? (prostitution is in modern Korea) It is disgusting because it happened, I assume you don't find pedophilia revolting as well?
As far as I know,
Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation is where reparation was done.
Article I
1 Japan shall supply the Republic of Korea with:
(a) Products of Japan and the services of Japanese people, free of charge, the total value of which will be so much in yen as shall be equivalent to three hundred million United States dollars ($300,000,000), at present computed at one hundred and eight billion yen (\108,000,000,000), within a period of ten years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force. The supply of products and services each year shall be limited to so much in yen as shall be equivalent to thirty million United States dollars ($30,000,000), at present computed at ten billion eight hundred million yen (\10,800,000,000); when the supply of any one year falls short of this amount, the remainder shall be added to the amount for the next and subsequent years. However, the maximum amount supplied for any one year may be increased by agreement between the Governments of the High Contracting Parties.
(b) Long-term and low-interest loans up to so much in yen as shall be equivalent to two hundred million United States dollars ($200,000,000), at present computed at seventy-two billion yen (\72,000,000,000), which are requested by the Government of the Republic of Korea and which will be covered by procuring the products of Japan and the services of Japanese people necessary for implementing the enterprises to be decided upon in accordance with arrangements to be concluded under paragraph 3 within a period of ten years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force. These loans shall be extended by the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan, and the Government of Japan shall take the necessary measures to enable the Fund to secure the funds for equal annual loans. The aforesaid supply and loans must serve the economic development of the Republic of Korea.
Article II
1 The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally.
Fervor is one thing, acting according to laws and agreements is another. Blame your own government for not officially including Dokdo's sovereignty as reparation.
|
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this azarkon kid is probably being contrarian (something he evidently enjoys) when he tries to defend nationalism as tribalism. serious
|
On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest.
There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken.
So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries.
|
On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries.
That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands.
|
On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands.
I'm curious if there's a feeling in China among whoever it is you're talking to that the media outlets pushing the outrage & calls for action among the Chinese rioters are a) spurred by Chinese civilian leaders (distracting the populace), b) spurred by Chinese military leaders (distracting the populace + increasing support for military-friendly policies), or c) a natural out-growth of social media (meaning started by a or b, but now independent of those media mouthpieces).
Does that question make sense?
|
On September 19 2012 14:39 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands. I'm curious if there's a feeling in China among whoever it is you're talking to that the media outlets pushing the outrage & calls for action among the Chinese rioters are a) spurred by Chinese civilian leaders (distracting the populace), b) spurred by Chinese military leaders (distracting the populace + increasing support for military-friendly policies), or c) a natural out-growth of social media (meaning started by a or b, but now independent of those media mouthpieces). Does that question make sense?
It's firmly c).
Most of the people I've spoken to think all this "emotionalism" is only going to make key personnel transitions at the 18th Party Congress harder.
Also, China hasn't really had a unified "media department" since 2008. Most of Chinese media actually adheres more to Hearst's rules of yellow journalism than the Party Center.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
any guesses as to the sources of that emotionalism. especially when the tragedies of war in europe have produced quite the opposite emotional reaction towards nationalistic sentiments.
let's not pretend that decades of educating the public about the nationalistic resistance narrative dientifying the present regime in china to the mystical great National Agenda isn't at full blossom here.
|
On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands.
That actually makes a lot of sense now that I come to think about it. I'm betting Japanese officials(Ishihara basically) are banking on the mutual-defence thing and think that worst comes to worst they can drag daddy in to fix their problems. I can't help but wonder if American officials will ever get tired of that?
|
On September 19 2012 14:47 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:39 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands. I'm curious if there's a feeling in China among whoever it is you're talking to that the media outlets pushing the outrage & calls for action among the Chinese rioters are a) spurred by Chinese civilian leaders (distracting the populace), b) spurred by Chinese military leaders (distracting the populace + increasing support for military-friendly policies), or c) a natural out-growth of social media (meaning started by a or b, but now independent of those media mouthpieces). Does that question make sense? It's firmly c). Most of the people I've spoken to think all this "emotionalism" is only going to make key personnel transitions at the 18th Party Congress harder. Also, China hasn't really had a unified "media department" since 2008. Most of Chinese media actually adheres more to Hearst's rules of yellow journalism than the Party Center.
Hmm, ok. Interesting. Thanks for the response. Very different from the States, where most forms of 'outrage' have roots in a clearly-defined media group. Evangelical outrage results from prompting by religious media & groups like The Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson's outfit), right-wing outrage from Hannity & Limbaugh, etc.
A more generic yellow journalism would seem more dangerous, as it sounds to my ignorant ears as if it might have wider reach.
|
On September 19 2012 15:04 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands. That actually makes a lot of sense now that I come to think about it. I'm betting Japanese officials(Ishihara basically) are banking on the mutual-defence thing and think that worst comes to worst they can drag daddy in to fix their problems. I can't help but wonder if American officials will ever get tired of that?
Isn't Israel doing that too?
|
On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries.
Mmm, I was pretty impressed with the way Russia handled the north Korea issue just recently. I think some kind of agreement like that is possible, albeit unlikely.
|
On September 19 2012 15:04 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:27 Shady Sands wrote:On September 19 2012 14:18 Caphe wrote:On September 19 2012 13:36 SwiftSpear wrote:
Ideally, I'd like ownership of this island to be considered 50/50, since historical ownership is garbage anyways.
Let China buy Japan out and put this ridiculous issue to rest. There is in no-way this matter could be settled like that consider the history between China and Japan. I expect it to die down with a year or two though. Since China has an upcoming power transition from Hu Jin Tao to Xi Jin Ping, Japan has an election coming as well if i m not mistaken. So I think this issue was pushed by both countries is just a political move to deter the public to focus on economy in the upcoming changes that will happen in both countries. That's the most common interpretation here amongst Chinese officials that I've spoken to. Although this is mixed a surprising amount of irrational, barely-subconscious rage at Japan's continued attempts to abuse the US-Japan security treaty to browbeat China. One of the officials said something about Japan being a "bitch who's slipped her leash" that the US needs to "restrain", but that they said so far they feel this will not affect the US-China relationship, since, publicly and privately, the US has expressed regret over Japan's decision to purchase the islands. That actually makes a lot of sense now that I come to think about it. I'm betting Japanese officials(Ishihara basically) are banking on the mutual-defence thing and think that worst comes to worst they can drag daddy in to fix their problems. I can't help but wonder if American officials will ever get tired of that?
Nope. It's more like Ishihara wants to prove that US is useless in this kind of situation. Then, with public support, upgrading self defense force into official military and arming with own nuke is the next agenda for the extreme right wing. Effectively working US-Japan alliance actually hinders this ambition. "Daddy is useless, I gotta be the man myself." is the real game they are playing. By the way, currently ruling party DPJ, which came in power for the first time in 2009, consists of a bunch of noobs in politics. These bronze league politicians are getting trolled hard by GM veteran politician like Ishihara. There is no excuse for being or electing noobs, but that's the way it is now. Todally messed up.
|
This is just frightening to see, these people will the biggest economy some day. I will never buy any chinese product and if can not made in china as well, and everyone else should do the same imo. People should more think about for the future. China claims not only these islands but also islands from chinese east see which is completely not part of china geographically and a territory of the same size of texas from india.
And they will sure bossing the rest of the world around worse like america does right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4528335065514799&id=75555e0094ca1ec04aef4e72087f2c4e)
