2012-09-25, 03:09 | Link #362 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Quote:
It is possible the Chinese claimed them long ago when they were claiming everything in the region. But as far as I know, no one did anything with those islands until the Japanese got them. They question would be if the islands would be considered on one side of a line were one side is Japan and the other is China, or just that the islands were the border of te waters and not really claimed by either side to avoid this sort of tension.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-25, 03:27 | Link #363 |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
If winning a land with a war century ago "doesn't count" (even signed by both parties involved), then we'd have to get rid of hell of a lot of nations around the world including parts of China and whole of USA.
__________________
|
2012-09-25, 03:49 | Link #365 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now that is what I called MOAB (Moe Ordnance Air Burst). And the Russians, the Vietnamese?
__________________
|
||
2012-09-25, 04:27 | Link #367 |
Ava courtesy of patchy
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Yes, after further reading, I found a sentence which is the basis of the argument in the article that is not based by any fact whatsoever, and that is that Japan has to return any land they conquer after 1895. If we make treaty of san fransisco, and treaty of taipei(both of which is not attended by PRC, an important point IMO) as the basis, there is mention of such point(that Japan has to return all land it conquer instead of only the select few mentioned in the article) in both treaties.
So yes, IMO the article is faulty although it gives two main point of interest that favor PRC's right in trying to claim the islands. 1. Japan did officially acknowledge the islands belong to China prior to 1895, and 2. PRC was never invited to any treaties involving the aftermath of the WW II, so it never has any chance to claim back senkaku during treaty of Taipei, where Japan renounce their rights to most of China's land conquered by them during first sino-japanese war(Taipei and Penghu). |
2012-09-25, 06:38 | Link #369 | |||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
job creation maybe, wealth creation? mostly for the multi-national corporations Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Japan realize that much of this noise was really driven by China's own need for domestic political distraction in a rather turbulent power transition period, and the last thing it wants to do is provide a reason, even if justified, to drive up the nationalistic fervor in China, which can have dangerous and unpredictable consequences (which is why the PRC clamped down on the protests pretty quickly after a few days). Quote:
I feel bad for all the poor scrubs who have to clean up all that mess afterwards |
|||||
2012-09-25, 07:42 | Link #372 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
"Hey guys, let's take this chance to clean our ships on the taxpayers' dime!" |
|
2012-09-25, 07:51 | Link #373 |
Underweight Food Hoarder
|
I wish college humor makes a parody of this like they do about Kim Jong Un. Have this homo-erotic water gun fight amongst boats with sappy romance music in the background.
Can you imagine if some military/political leader of the past rises from the grave and witnesses this? "Does no one have real weapons!?". If there is going to be a WWIII, I hope it's with water guns. |
2012-09-25, 07:52 | Link #374 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Basically, the scholar made up BS based on the moves Japan did not make without considering the international atmosphere at the time and the tensions following the Ryukyu annexation and crisis. |
|
2012-09-25, 10:07 | Link #376 | |
Ava courtesy of patchy
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
If this is really indeed written in the document(I admit, the author could have misinterpret the writing due to unavoidable reader bias) and the island mentioned here is indeed Senkaku, wasn't this mean the Meiji government officially, at least from what the foreign minister wrote, recognize it as belonging to China from the "islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan" sentence? Like I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that the island belong to China though, since China does surrender the island along with Taiwan on the aftermath of first Sino-Japanese war, and the treaty of Taipei does not mention Senkaku as one of the island that Japan has to return to its rightful owner, but this give PRC enough premise to state that the island is indeed disputed. |
|
2012-09-25, 12:06 | Link #377 | ||||
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
This week's cover story in The Economist
Could Asia really go to war over these? Quote:
__________________
|
||||
Tags |
border, china, dispute, japan |
|
|