|
On September 21 2012 13:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:33 b0mBerMan wrote:On September 21 2012 13:27 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 13:23 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 13:16 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 13:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism. When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism. But see Nationalism incited hatred among countries. But individualism instill despise within people. If a person thinks that he is entitle to his own will. Who knows what he'll do if his emotions starts to flip on him toward another. Nationalism is everywhere, it is meant to protect the overall interest or the grande scheme of things. Can you give me your definition of nationalism? I think we are talking about two different things. My definition is Nationalism = a group of people who call themselves with a certain name and to survive by striving to gain as much advantage for the sake of the group. What's yours on it? Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too And everyone for themselves. Now we are back to being animals! How refreshing where laws won't be imposed to you and that you won't get jailed for murder.
Your comment made me laugh.
I know there are many ways to interpret songs/poetry/prose, but you just took the worst possible interpretative route. Given the context of the song, John Lennon, and the ongoing discussion we are having here, how could you have interpreted in a manner you did, that the song "Imagine" of international fame (I hope you've heard of it), is about "everyone for themselves... we are back to being animals!"
Can't get more retarded wrong in interpreting a song than you did.
|
On September 21 2012 13:33 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase. Yes, Japan is clearly trying to rehabilitate its "errors" from WWII. That's why people in Korea and China aren't angry at all. Clearly you don't know what your talking about. Japan isn't sorry. Look at germany. They admitted their mistakes and done many things to let others know they are sorry (banning of swastika imagery, formal apologies to israel, neo-nazism is criminal, etc). And most of europe has gotten over it. What has Japan done? Continual aggression on other people's territories, distortion of school history textbooks, and a growing far-right wing that they can't seem to control. Lets be clear here. The atrocities that Japan committed before and during WWII is as bad or worse than hitler's. Westerners forget that there was a holocaust in asia too. I'm not trying to diminish the significance of the crimes that Nazi germany committed, but Japan did many worse things. You think gas chambers and concentration camps were bad? What about systematized human torture or chemical experiments on live humans? What about ceremonial beheadings of prisoners or systematized rape? It gets even worse once you start digging into the history. It's hilarious. Japan thinks they are the victims of WWII. They think they were the victims when they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people around asia. They have all these memorials and shit set up around their country that cry about the "horrible" things that american carpet bombing did to them. I'm not even going to go into the nuclear bombs that got dropped on two of their cities. It's not a lack of the correct attitude. It's having the totally wrong one.
what does any of that have to do with the land rights to islands.
It's absolutely ridiculous to try to excuse the rioters in china. Rioting anytime is a fucktard thing to do, but the chinese are rioting over something absolutely disgusting. Not to mention they are hurting themselves more than japan.
What you are saying is hardly a correct view at all. I've actually lived in japan, and have japanese heritage. Why do you think japan has a constitutional clause that they cannot have a military (only the limited defense force). Japanese people all think that they got swept up by a religious and political nutjob, just like the germans do about hitler. They think it was all terrible.
Far right in japan out of control? lol, what far right? this is ridiculous, japanese don't harbor any huge resentment towards chinese or koreans (well, not any more racist than every asian person is tbh). china government just fans the flames to this shit.
|
On September 21 2012 14:16 robjapan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 14:10 xelnaga_empire wrote:On September 21 2012 14:04 robjapan wrote:
I believe it was the "we" that returned those islands back to Japanese control?
Because the USA was fighting communism in the 1970s so of course, it made sense to return the islands to its ally that was fighting communism (Japan) rather than the communist enemy (China)? If I steal your car and give it to my friend, does that mean my friend properly owns your car? So when the British "discovered" America and took it from the Natives but then lost it.... does that mean Americans should give America back to the native Americans? or how about Tibet, or Mongolia? how about Palestine? What's done is done, the treaties were signed, agreed to and acted out. The End.
1) There is an argument that the natives do own the land in America. At least the USA has created reserves for the natives where they natives can employ their own limited laws (provided the law does not violate the constitution). Also, Americans are educated about the atrocities committed against the natives whereas Japan to this very day is trying to whitewash their atrocities in WW2 and rewrite their version of history.
2) Tibet probably deserves self government and if the people vote for and wish, independence from China
3) The same with Palestine. Palestine deserves self government and if the people vote for and wish, independence from Israel
4) The Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands should be returned to Taiwan because they never belonged to Japan in the first place.
|
On September 21 2012 07:22 NBronJames wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:06 Orek wrote:
Well, well, I first mentioned Dokdo/Takeshima only to point out Japan's double-standard nature (despite my support of Japanese view in general), but this turned into a mess... I hope a mod considers this discussion as relevant enough in that this is also another territorial dispute Japan has.
You are just about the only one that constantly bring Korea to the discussion. That is in a way derailing the thread. It's strange how you don't mention the territorial dispute with Russia. It makes me question your agenda. Keep in mind this is a thread to discuss about the disputed territorial between China and Japan. I'm not the only one you have been debating heavily against regards to Dokdo and you are pushing harder and harder with your biased Japanese view. It should be okay though since it's at least somewhat relevant. I just hope that you focus more on China and Japan instead of Korea and Japan. It's still better than that world war 3 scenario non-sense people were discussing earlier. That was ridiculous 
I guess I already made my point, and so did you. I learned from you posts, and I hope you and others learned at least something from my posts.
You are just about the only one that constantly bring Korea to the discussion.
My bad. Couldn't stand the notion that Japan would lose ICJ verdict.
I'm glad you are at least man enough to admit that the San Francisco treaty is the weak point of Japanese claim.
I don't blindly support all Japanese view. So, what's weak is weak. I'm also glad that you were also man enough to admit that ambiguity existed for sources in the MIddle Ages. Both sides have weak points for sure.
|
On September 21 2012 13:57 robjapan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:33 white_horse wrote:On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase. Yes, Japan is clearly trying to rehabilitate its "errors" from WWII. That's why people in Korea and China aren't angry at all. Clearly you don't know what your talking about. Japan isn't sorry. Look at germany. They admitted their mistakes and done many things to let others know they are sorry (banning of swastika imagery, formal apologies to israel, neo-nazism is criminal, etc). And most of europe has gotten over it. What has Japan done? Continual aggression on other people's territories, distortion of school history textbooks, and a growing far-right wing that they can't seem to control. Lets be clear here. The atrocities that Japan committed before and during WWII is as bad or worse than hitler's. Westerners forget that there was a holocaust in asia too. I'm not trying to diminish the significance of the crimes that Nazi germany committed, but Japan did many worse things. You think gas chambers and concentration camps were bad? What about systematized human torture or chemical experiments on live humans? What about ceremonial beheadings of prisoners or systematized rape? It gets even worse once you start digging into the history. It's hilarious. Japan thinks they are the victims of WWII. They think they were the victims when they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people around asia. They have all these memorials and shit set up around their country that cry about the "horrible" things that american carpet bombing did to them. I'm not even going to go into the nuclear bombs that got dropped on two of their cities. It's not a lack of the correct attitude. It's having the totally wrong one. It's clear YOU are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. Japan has apologized on many many many MANY occasions, VAST amounts of money has been given and the school text books make the children I speak to cry in class because they can't believe the awful things their own people did. Japan thinks they are the victims? No not at all, in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true, the majority of Japanese people believe they were the people in the wrong and that they got punished for the horrific things they did. You think no neo-nazi's exist in Germany? dead wrong, they are a BIG group of people with a growing support. It is up to us to encourage peace and understanding, what are you doing? encouraging racism and hatred?
We all have to take it easy. Being both someone with Japanese lineage, we naturally have a bias for Japan. I try to be objective, but you can`t expect people to not be emotional about this. Japan has mostly done things under the radar. For this discussion to be productive, we have to be calm and reasonable about all this and not base everything on hate and misunderstanding.
|
On September 21 2012 14:26 Belial88 wrote:
this is ridiculous, japanese don't harbor any huge resentment towards chinese or koreans (well, not any more racist than every asian person is tbh).
On September 20 2012 23:31 Feartheguru wrote:
Why would Japanese people have a Nationalistic grudge against China? Don't worry, if I beat you up I wouldn't hold a grudge against you.
|
well said, land disputes need to be decided by law experts not by hate filled mobs.
|
On September 21 2012 13:50 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote:You do realize that saying something like that is as retarded as me saying - "Give Canada back to the aboriginal peoples who were living there for thousands of years before the British and French arrived" These islands and who owns them was agreed upon over 100 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ShimonosekiThe FACTS of the matter are that China didn't give a shit about these islands until someone found oil. I think the sad truth is that the Chinese people are frustrated and Japan is just the easiest target who their anger And Japan agreed to return all territories it had taken from the Allies after WW2: Show nested quote +The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam, the USA, the UK and the Republic of China. Japan accepted the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_disputeThe Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands are a part of Taiwan so they must be returned to Taiwan as part of the agreement. I think the sad truth is Japan refuses to acknowledge their war crimes like Germany has and that's why all of Japan's neigbors still despise Japan to this very day (look at the Korean dislike for Japan in this thread).
Diaoyu/Senkaku was not ceded to Japan by Treaty of Shimonoseki. Those islands were incorporated into Japanese territory before that. Qing Dynasty had no severeignty over islands. No inhabitant, no building, no trace of control after 10 years of research from 1885. Islands were terra nullius at that point. Taiwan(Formosa) and Pescadores Group were ceded by the treaty, not Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.
|
On September 21 2012 14:52 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:50 xelnaga_empire wrote:On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote:You do realize that saying something like that is as retarded as me saying - "Give Canada back to the aboriginal peoples who were living there for thousands of years before the British and French arrived" These islands and who owns them was agreed upon over 100 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ShimonosekiThe FACTS of the matter are that China didn't give a shit about these islands until someone found oil. I think the sad truth is that the Chinese people are frustrated and Japan is just the easiest target who their anger And Japan agreed to return all territories it had taken from the Allies after WW2: The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam, the USA, the UK and the Republic of China. Japan accepted the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_disputeThe Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands are a part of Taiwan so they must be returned to Taiwan as part of the agreement. I think the sad truth is Japan refuses to acknowledge their war crimes like Germany has and that's why all of Japan's neigbors still despise Japan to this very day (look at the Korean dislike for Japan in this thread). Diaoyu/Senkaku was not ceded to Japan by Treaty of Shimonoseki. Those islands were incorporated into Japanese territory before that. Qing Dynasty had no severeignty over islands. No inhabitant, no building, no trace of control after 10 years of research from 1885. Islands were terra nullius at that point. Taiwan(Formosa) and Pescadores Group were ceded by the treaty, not Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.
Japan took control of the islands during the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895, to whom they were formally ceded by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. A letter of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1885, warning against annexing the islands due to anxiety about China's response, shows that Japan knew the islands were not terra nullius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
|
On September 21 2012 14:37 robjapan wrote:
well said, land disputes need to be decided by law experts not by hate filled mobs.
Those hate filled mobs are trying to get their government to retake the islands. The law disputes over the islands are a bit more complicated than one can imagine, with the Japanese officially annexing the islands in 1895. After 1945, the US decided to occupy the islands for a while, then gave it to japan in 1972 via the Okinawa Reservation Treaty. Now the Chinese and Taiwanese have been disputing it ever since, claiming that they (Taiwan specifically ) have owned the island since 1534, and the Japanese should have returned it after the Potsdam Treaty. Geographical-wise, its a tricky situation, since its almost perfectly in between China and Japan (approx. 200 miles from each country, 120 miles off of Taiwan). Japan bought the remaining 3 islands pretty recently, prompting rioters to flip the shits out of tables and everything, because they're pissed that Japan is taking some of their land. There might be some oil fields under the islands, and there are fishing grounds all around the island but other than that there isn't much economic importance of the islands. Really, it comes to Japan "taking" some of China's land and the Chinese people being pissed off as hell since they still have a grudge from the late 19th and 20th centuries where the Japanese army subjugated China, or that's how I'm interpreting it.
|
All this because the US gave it to Japan instead of Taiwan like it fucking should have...
|
For those who think this should be settled in the International Court, it is Japan that is refusing to take this issue to the International Court, not China:
While the International Court of Justice in The Hague deals with territorial and other disputes between countries, Japan is not considering filing a complaint with the UN body, according to sources.
"If the government approaches the World Court [to resolve the issue], it would give the impression that Japan acknowledges the existence of a territorial dispute over the islands. This is China's intention," a government source said.
A dispute can only be brought before the World Court if the countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Even if China files a complaint with the World Court, Japan would not respond to such a move, according to the sources.
http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=33153
|
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not.
|
On September 21 2012 14:56 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 14:52 Orek wrote:On September 21 2012 13:50 xelnaga_empire wrote:On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote:You do realize that saying something like that is as retarded as me saying - "Give Canada back to the aboriginal peoples who were living there for thousands of years before the British and French arrived" These islands and who owns them was agreed upon over 100 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ShimonosekiThe FACTS of the matter are that China didn't give a shit about these islands until someone found oil. I think the sad truth is that the Chinese people are frustrated and Japan is just the easiest target who their anger And Japan agreed to return all territories it had taken from the Allies after WW2: The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam, the USA, the UK and the Republic of China. Japan accepted the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_disputeThe Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands are a part of Taiwan so they must be returned to Taiwan as part of the agreement. I think the sad truth is Japan refuses to acknowledge their war crimes like Germany has and that's why all of Japan's neigbors still despise Japan to this very day (look at the Korean dislike for Japan in this thread). Diaoyu/Senkaku was not ceded to Japan by Treaty of Shimonoseki. Those islands were incorporated into Japanese territory before that. Qing Dynasty had no severeignty over islands. No inhabitant, no building, no trace of control after 10 years of research from 1885. Islands were terra nullius at that point. Taiwan(Formosa) and Pescadores Group were ceded by the treaty, not Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. Show nested quote +Japan took control of the islands during the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895, to whom they were formally ceded by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. A letter of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1885, warning against annexing the islands due to anxiety about China's response, shows that Japan knew the islands were not terra nullius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
?
The point is that Diaoyu/Senkaku islands were not included in "Taiwan" in Treaty of Shimonoseki. I think the problem arose because both countries didn't specify all 50+ or so islands. Both interpret different islands diffrently as long as those are not mentioned in the treaty.
On September 21 2012 15:07 xelnaga_empire wrote:For those who think this should be settled in the International Court, it is Japan that is refusing to take this issue to the International Court, not China: Show nested quote +While the International Court of Justice in The Hague deals with territorial and other disputes between countries, Japan is not considering filing a complaint with the UN body, according to sources.
"If the government approaches the World Court [to resolve the issue], it would give the impression that Japan acknowledges the existence of a territorial dispute over the islands. This is China's intention," a government source said.
A dispute can only be brought before the World Court if the countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Even if China files a complaint with the World Court, Japan would not respond to such a move, according to the sources. http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=33153
Nothing is holding China back from proposing to ICJ alone and impose the image to the international community that Japan is the one not willing to solve it according to international law if Japan rejects it. I am all for ICJ option. If Japanese government rejcts the proposal, then I would criticize Japanese government. People's opinion is changing in Japan, so government is pressured to accept ICJ option if China agrees. I really hope they both settle this issue then and there. China's "I wouldn't go because he probably wouldn't either." is just excuse not to go to ICJ. Proposing itself does not require agreement from coutnerpart country.
|
On September 21 2012 15:18 robjapan wrote:
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not.
It's this stiff neck attitude that keeps perpetuating this state of madness I'd say. If the people in power in Japan were willing to bend their stiff necks a bit and lose some face, there'd probably have been more progress and dialogue by now.
|
On September 21 2012 15:24 Orek wrote:
Nothing is holding China back from proposing to ICJ alone and impose the image to the international community that Japan is the one not willing to solve it according to international law if Japan rejects it. I am all for ICJ option. If Japanese government rejcts the proposal, then I would criticize Japanese government. People's opinion is changing in Japan, so government is pressured to accept ICJ option if China agrees. I really hope they both settle this issue then and there. China's "I wouldn't go because he probably wouldn't either." is just excuse not to go to ICJ. Proposing itself does not require agreement from coutnerpart country.
At least you are sound in your thinking unlike robjapan. The International Court would be a good venue to put this issue to rest peacefully and fairly. Maybe you can convince robjapan as well.
|
I'm all for it going to the ICJ, 100%
Facts remain that nobody has proposed anything, news reports "suggesting" Japan would refuse is just hate mongering.
|
On September 21 2012 15:18 robjapan wrote:
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not.
And why the hell would Korea agree to japan's ridiculous ICJ complaint when they already own the freaking islet?
Talk about being ignorant.
|
If that were true it would confidently march to the ICJ with no worries surely?
|
On September 21 2012 15:45 robjapan wrote:
If that were true it would confidently march to the ICJ with no worries surely?
And there's your problem.
One of the current head of the ICJ judges is a Japanese national. Certainly, I really doubt a biased decision would come out of that court?
Taking this issue to ICJ means japan has a point in their claim. And why would Korea accept this from first place?
Pretty ridiculous. This is what japan is avoiding from China. Yet, you make a point that SK is refusing to go to ICJ. These both countries are doing exact same thing.
Japan accepting to go to ICJ in China's demand proves that China has a point in their claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
