|
On September 20 2012 13:50 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 13:35 ShadeR wrote:On September 20 2012 07:30 Mykill wrote:On September 20 2012 03:46 ShadeR wrote:On September 20 2012 03:28 Mykill wrote:
I can't believe chinese are still arguing over a stupid rock in the middle of the ocean. You can't even live on it and the oil reserves arent confirmed. This anti-Japanese sentiment is so annoying, it's just because WWII isnt 100 years ago that people are still arguing about this. My classmates all hate on Japan because they've been taught that Japan is bad despite them driving Lexus/Toyota vehicles and using Sony laptops and eating sushi.
In 50 years time people will barely remember the details of the war just like how we've forgotten about the details in the american revolution and the rule of the mongolians.
“Our generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question, our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.” Deng Xiaoping
He was most definitely wrong, the new generation is just more angry and spiteful. It is not just a stupid rock. This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China. Annoying anti-Japanese sentiment? lol i bet it was probably mildly annoying for the girls who were raped, impregnated, infected with disease and then vivisected. But hey somehow having Japanese products means you can't have grievances about unacknowledged war time atrocities. You have absolutely no sense of perspective. Your opinions on this topic are without merit. Rape is something that happens during war. Nanking massacre was not a good thing however the people have been executed as they should. People need to move on. My opinions on this topic are merited because we don't have anti-german sentiments. It IS a rock, this is about pride, ego and which nation is "better" China has committed many atrocities in war on others and their own which have been recorded as well they are just more ancient. Most of the anti-Japanese sentiment comes from victor's justice. China got their ass kicked and then America bombed Japan so in the end they "won" but not without suffering large casualties. In addition the Chinese are talking about killing Japanese people publicly at an Audi dealership. What is right about that? It has been discussed to death why there are anti-Japan sentiment and why there are not anti-German sentiments. I'll leave it up to you read the last 70 pages. Rape with the absurdly high participation rates as in the Japanese army during WWII does not just happen during war. The rape of Nanking and sex slaves (lol comfort women) is entirely unique to Japan at the time. Maybe my phrasing wasn't great but "raped, impregnated, infected with disease and then vivisected." This shit happened in sequence. Things were so fucked up. I don't even know if you are responding to me. Your just throwing random things out there. Where on earth did i say death threats at the audi dealership are right?? WTF at victors justice. When did i say it is not a rock? It is not just a stupid rock. This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China. SKorea Taiwan and China all stand together in opposition to Japan buying those islands. I disagree with some of your statements, but let me just limit this post to fact check. SKorea does not stand together with Taiwan/China in opposition to Japan buying those islands. Regardless of the strong sentiment that SKorea wants to be anti-Japan at every single issue possible, SKorea has never taken side on this Senkaku issue.
You are right despite general popular opinion the SKorean gov is not taking sides.
On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not.
Perhaps it's due to different interpretations of what national sovereignty is but an inch, a kilometer or a thousand kilometers. It does not matter. The PRC and ROC believe that their national sovereignty is being violated and they won't stand for it. Simple.
|
On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not.
Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands.
This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it.
|
On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it.
That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit.
Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly".
That is simply not the case here.
|
That's just semantics, and it's amusingly pedantic.
Both China and Japan sees this as a sovereign issue. It's not a big one, just the sovereignty of an inhabited island.
Let's put it in your words: the sovereignty of the island and its resources are in question for both countries if the issue go badly for either of them.
|
On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here.
I am no legal expert, so excuse me for some ignorance. But I don't think territorial dispute can exist without it being sovereignty issue. OK. I talked about all those resources above, so let's just forget about them for now. Even without those resources, I think it is still a sovereignty issue. Both parties think the islands are legally theirs. So, they argue over it. Had no resource existed, they probably wouldn't emphasize as much for sure. It's not like sovereignty of Beijing or Tokyo is threatened directly by this issue, but sovereignty of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands surely is depending on which side of perspective you have.
|
On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here.
If Japan gives up this island, and all the territory the island gives, it sends the message that they are incapable to defend territory that they consider their own. What if China then claims a second island?
It is a matter of sovereignty.
|
On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past.
|
On September 20 2012 14:30 sickle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. If Japan gives up this island, and all the territory the island gives, it sends the message that they are incapable to defend territory that they consider their own. What if China then claims a second island? It is a matter of sovereignty.
Which second island group?
Okinawa?
The one with a big-ass American base on it? The one people are willing to go to war over?
Dumb argument based on a pretend danger with no basis in reality.
We lost South Vietnam and communism didn't take over the world... dominoes have no place in international politics. Nor do slippery slopes.
|
On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past.
Bing! Racism based on the delusion that a country is an entity with an existence independent of the individuals that make up that country. Throw in a little ad populum assumption of the righteousness of one's cause, then another justification based on other people having the same kind of moronic logic. Two groups of fools are better than one! Best part is how if you're not asian we wouldn't understand, see these other non-asians are just like us.
Can't parody the idiocy better than that, good job.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past.
Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima.
|
On September 20 2012 14:59 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima.
Wow you lose all legitimacy when you tell someone to go watch a Clint Eastwood Hollywood movie about WW2 for reference.
|
On September 20 2012 14:53 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:30 sickle wrote:On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. If Japan gives up this island, and all the territory the island gives, it sends the message that they are incapable to defend territory that they consider their own. What if China then claims a second island? It is a matter of sovereignty. Which second island group? Okinawa? The one with a big-ass American base on it? The one people are willing to go to war over? Dumb argument based on a pretend danger with no basis in reality. We lost South Vietnam and communism didn't take over the world... dominoes have no place in international politics. Nor do slippery slopes.
Disregard my second sentence, I am not an expert on what islands are between Japan and China.
My first statement still stands. By giving up territory they are allowing themselves to be pushed around, which weakens themselves in the political arena.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 15:05 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima. Wow you lose all legitimacy when you tell someone to go watch a Clint Eastwood Hollywood movie about WW2 for reference.
On May 20 1945 15:05 Orwell wrote:
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine?
Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.
Wow, how did George Orwell manage to describe you on TL so well 50 years before you were born? That guy must be a prophet or something.
Seriously, watch the movie before you comment. It's much better than the propaganda-filled Chinese WW2 movies you've been watching all your life.
|
On September 20 2012 15:07 sickle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:53 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:30 sickle wrote:On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. If Japan gives up this island, and all the territory the island gives, it sends the message that they are incapable to defend territory that they consider their own. What if China then claims a second island? It is a matter of sovereignty. Which second island group? Okinawa? The one with a big-ass American base on it? The one people are willing to go to war over? Dumb argument based on a pretend danger with no basis in reality. We lost South Vietnam and communism didn't take over the world... dominoes have no place in international politics. Nor do slippery slopes. Disregard my second sentence, I am not an expert on what islands are between Japan and China. My first statement still stands. By giving up territory they are allowing themselves to be pushed around, which weakens themselves in the political arena.
That still isn't a sovereignty issue. Weakened in the political arena (by what would be, let's be realistic here, an infinitesimal amount, as Japan's power is based on its high rate of education, large economy, and technological expertise) does not equal loss of sovereignty.
Japan giving up claim to those islands will not result in Japan's inability to govern itself. China giving up claim to those islands will not result in China's inability to govern itself.
Even if one country or the other is in the right.
You cannot disregard the second sentence in your argument - it is a fundamental support for what you are trying to say: that ceding control of the disputed islands will dramatically increase the likelihood of losing further, significant chunks of territory.
But that's not true. Either country ceding control of the disputed islands would NOT increase the likelihood of that country losing significant chunks of territory.
That's one of the big reasons the islands cannot be reasonably be considered a sovereignty issue.
|
On September 20 2012 15:12 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 15:05 calderon wrote:On September 20 2012 14:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima. Wow you lose all legitimacy when you tell someone to go watch a Clint Eastwood Hollywood movie about WW2 for reference. Show nested quote +On May 20 1945 15:05 Orwell wrote:
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine?
Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world. Wow, how did George Orwell manage to describe you on TL so well 50 years before you were born? That guy must be a prophet or something. Seriously, watch the movie before you comment. It's much better than the propaganda-filled Chinese WW2 movies you've been watching all your life.
LOOOOL I love how you put that in an actual quote with the date!! I've been following this thread and I swear there hasn't been a poster called Orwell, mind was lost for a while there...
|
On September 20 2012 14:53 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:30 sickle wrote:On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. If Japan gives up this island, and all the territory the island gives, it sends the message that they are incapable to defend territory that they consider their own. What if China then claims a second island? It is a matter of sovereignty. Which second island group? Okinawa? The one with a big-ass American base on it? The one people are willing to go to war over? Dumb argument based on a pretend danger with no basis in reality. We lost South Vietnam and communism didn't take over the world... dominoes have no place in international politics. Nor do slippery slopes.
No basis in reality? You just didn't know the reality.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9692e93a-d3b5-11e1-b554-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26zGhYRQc
In a fiery editorial earlier this month, the Global Times newspaper urged Beijing to consider challenging Japan’s control over its southern prefecture of Okinawa – an island chain with a population of 1.4m people that bristles with US military bases.
“China should not be afraid of engaging with Japan in a mutual undermining of territorial integrity,” the Communist party-run paper declared.
Major General Jin Yinan, head of the strategy research institute at China’s National Defense University, went even further. He told state radio that limiting discussion to the Diaoyu was “too narrow”, saying Beijing should question ownership of the whole Ryukyu archipelago – which by some definitions extends beyond Okinawa.
I found some other sources of Chinese activists claiming Okinawa, but I can easily ignore them. Radical guys always exist among activists anywhere in the world, so they don't mean much. But 環球時報 newspaper run by Chinese government and Navy general are no insignificant activists. Their challenge over Okinawa's sovereignty needs to be taken somewhat seriously.
Give up Senkaku -> Give up Okinawa
is not entirely baseless.
Btw, at least, Chinese government doesn't support this view though.
|
On September 20 2012 15:12 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 15:05 calderon wrote:On September 20 2012 14:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima. Wow you lose all legitimacy when you tell someone to go watch a Clint Eastwood Hollywood movie about WW2 for reference. Show nested quote +On May 20 1945 15:05 Orwell wrote:
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine?
Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world. Wow, how did George Orwell manage to describe you on TL so well 50 years before you were born? That guy must be a prophet or something. Seriously, watch the movie before you comment. It's much better than the propaganda-filled Chinese WW2 movies you've been watching all your life.
The quality of this condescending strawman post kind of contrast badly with the wisdom of that quote imo.
Btw you should also say that to Ishihara and the Japanese ultra-nationalists while you're at it.
|
On September 20 2012 14:24 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. I am no legal expert, so excuse me for some ignorance. But I don't think territorial dispute can exist without it being sovereignty issue. OK. I talked about all those resources above, so let's just forget about them for now. Even without those resources, I think it is still a sovereignty issue. Both parties think the islands are legally theirs. So, they argue over it. Had no resource existed, they probably wouldn't emphasize as much for sure. It's not like sovereignty of Beijing or Tokyo is threatened directly by this issue, but sovereignty of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands surely is depending on which side of perspective you have.
I draw a distinction between sovereignty and absolute territorial integrity. My reasoning for doing so can be generally understood using this extreme example: if America were to suddenly and unexpectedly lose the Gasden purchase to Mexico, aliens, or whatever, would it threaten our continued existence as a sovereign nation?
No. No it would not. This does not mean we do not wish to retain the land we gained in the Gasden purchase, or that we will not take efforts to do so. But a dispute, or even the loss of the Gasden purchase cannot be considered an issue where sovereignty is at stake. It could only be considered so if the loss of the Gasden purchase put America at significantly greater risk of losing territory to the extent that the nation itself is dramatically altered.
So, to finish the example, losing the Gasden purchase would not be a sovereignty issue unless it also meant Mexico was much more likely to attempt to reclaim all former territory lost to the United States. THAT would be a sovereignty issuel.
Neither China nor Japan stand to lose territory of any real significance should they concede the islands in question. No one lives on them permanently, for Pete's sake. A dispute over those islands, given that neither state is likely to lose other territory should they concede the islands, is not an issue of sovereignty.
Perhaps you disagree on the definition of sovereignty. If so, feel free. But claiming this is an issue of national sovereignty is something nationalists do to make a minor dispute seem like an issue of vast national importance.
The dispute over these islands is not an issue of vast national importance to either China or Japan. The internal politics driving the dispute might be. But the islands themselves are not.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 15:26 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 15:12 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 15:05 calderon wrote:On September 20 2012 14:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote:On September 20 2012 12:59 zhurai wrote:On September 20 2012 12:28 fishjie wrote:
i'm a chinese guy and understand the hate for japan. they raped everybody in asia (literally too, quite terribad) and try to cover it up in their history textbooks. but at this rate, with china going all aggro on its neighbors, i woudln't be surprised if china became the new world war 2 japan. and i will be a very sad panda if that happens =/ except do you think that the current (i.e. youngest) generation of japan... the ones that actually "raped everyone in asia"? + Show Spoiler +
No. which is why war is stupid or blaming everything on the _whole japanese race_ is a fucking retarded and braindead idea
doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Japan was under a military dictatorship at the time with the people in charge institutionalizing a belief in superiority of the Japanese race much like Hitler did in Germany with the Aryan race. Understand before you hate at least, that the Japanese people at the time were also victims. You should watch Letters From Iwo Jima. Wow you lose all legitimacy when you tell someone to go watch a Clint Eastwood Hollywood movie about WW2 for reference. On May 20 1945 15:05 Orwell wrote:
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported — battles, massacres, famines, revolutions — tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine?
Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world. Wow, how did George Orwell manage to describe you on TL so well 50 years before you were born? That guy must be a prophet or something. Seriously, watch the movie before you comment. It's much better than the propaganda-filled Chinese WW2 movies you've been watching all your life. The quality of this condescending strawman post kind of contrast badly with the wisdom of that quote imo. Btw you should also say that to Ishihara and the Japanese ultra-nationalists while you're at it.
You're right. It was pretty condescending and I probably owe calderon an apology. Sorry calderon.
I would say it to Ishihara and Japanese ultra-nationalists were they participating in this thread. You guys should watch the movie though. It's pretty enlightening hearing the story from the Japanese perspective. It's a movie that is fairly propaganda-free and contains few historical inaccuracies. I learned many things.
|
On September 20 2012 15:33 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:24 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 14:10 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 14:06 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 13:54 MisterFred wrote:This is a very serious national sovereignty issue for both Japan and China.
This is not a serious national sovereignty issue for either Japan or China. Neither state is at any risk of becoming a colony of the other. Neither state seriously risks being invaded by land. Conceding the islands by either party will lose mining rights on the sea floor, but even if this unlikely concession were to happen, it would simply not be likely to lead to some sort of cascade of territorial concessions. There is no sovereignty issue here. There is an "I want to get my way and look tougher" issue - but as much as nationalists' doomsday rhetoric wants to make posturing a sovereignty issue, it is not. Sovereignty of the islands is accompanied by oil, mineral, or whatever resource underground inside EEZ, fishing rights, control of surrounding water, expansion of military influence etc. I am sure neither side cares much about authority to arrest activists from either side landing on these islands. This is sovereignty issue because so much comes with it. That's a resource issue. Neither nation's sovereignty is threatened by losing those resources. Yeah, they're there. But in the end, it's a bunch of fish and a relatively minor oil & gas field that would be difficult to exploit. Sovereignty issue does not mean "I wanna get my way" or "it would really benefit me." It means "my sovereignty is in question if the issue goes badly". That is simply not the case here. I am no legal expert, so excuse me for some ignorance. But I don't think territorial dispute can exist without it being sovereignty issue. OK. I talked about all those resources above, so let's just forget about them for now. Even without those resources, I think it is still a sovereignty issue. Both parties think the islands are legally theirs. So, they argue over it. Had no resource existed, they probably wouldn't emphasize as much for sure. It's not like sovereignty of Beijing or Tokyo is threatened directly by this issue, but sovereignty of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands surely is depending on which side of perspective you have. I draw a distinction between sovereignty and absolute territorial integrity. My reasoning for doing so can be generally understood using this extreme example: if America were to suddenly and unexpectedly lose the Gasden purchase to Mexico, aliens, or whatever, would it threaten our continued existence as a sovereign nation? No. No it would not. This does not mean we do not wish to retain the land we gained in the Gasden purchase, or that we will not take efforts to do so. But a dispute, or even the loss of the Gasden purchase cannot be considered an issue where sovereignty is at stake. It could only be considered so if the loss of the Gasden purchase put America at significantly greater risk of losing territory to the extent that the nation itself is dramatically altered. So, to finish the example, losing the Gasden purchase would not be a sovereignty issue unless it also meant Mexico was much more likely to attempt to reclaim all former territory lost to the United States. THAT would be a sovereignty issuel. Neither China nor Japan stand to lose territory of any real significance should they concede the islands in question. No one lives on them permanently, for Pete's sake. A dispute over those islands, given that neither state is likely to lose other territory should they concede the islands, is not an issue of sovereignty. Perhaps you disagree on the definition of sovereignty. If so, feel free. But claiming this is an issue of national sovereignty is something nationalists do to make a minor dispute seem like an issue of vast national importance. The dispute over these islands is not an issue of vast national importance to either China or Japan. The internal politics driving the dispute might be. But the islands themselves are not.
Yeah, probably you and I have been using the word "sovereignty" with different definitions. I get your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
