2012-08-22, 07:57 | Link #23021 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Japanese Nationalists Occupy Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-22, 08:25 | Link #23023 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Japan Nation of Bullies: 57% Bullied, 27% Consider Suicide Writeup @ Sankaku (NSFW) Now that they have proven bullying is a cycle, I wonder if they would extend the "right of self-defence" to the victims and let them burn the school down. Napalm isn't that hard to make. Either that or have some form of suicide/euthanasia compensation law to the parents. Though I wonder if it is the avoid-trouble mentality ingrained into the kids in Asian societies that result in this kind of unnecessary destruction to the mental health of young individuals; those scars don't just fade away, self-esteem and personal confidence bleeds from those cuts, even through the later years into adulthood, until the poor guy is dry of it. EDIT : I thought this article would never be written, let alone published. Behind Singapore Inc. (Part I): The growing class of 'working poor' Quote:
__________________
Last edited by SaintessHeart; 2012-08-22 at 09:27. |
||
2012-08-22, 09:23 | Link #23024 | |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Quote:
Not to mention the riots last week where Chinese mobs destroyed Japanese cars and restaurants in their own country. Also, the island is contested, but it's still considered Japanese territory by International Law. It has been for over a century. It was temporary controlled by America after WWII, but ownership of the island was Japan's since 1895. Japanese going to the island may be sensitive, but at least it's not illegal. This whole "OH LOOK SOME RANDOM CHINESE DYNASTY PUT IT ON ITS MAP BACK IN 14TH CENTURY SO IT'S CHINESE OWNED!" didn't even come up till the 1970s. The Chinese didn't give crap about those uninhabitable islands till then. Do you know why? That's when studies showed massive amount of resources under the islands. Gas, oil, etc. After the reveal, suddenly China started making statements about it belonging to some ancient Chinese dynasty, even though they didn't give a rats ass for eighty years. So yeah, it's all about resource and money. Nationalistic agenda is pretty insignificant portion of the pie, for all three parties involved. If resource wasn't an issue, I personally think Taiwan derserves the land, they being the closest to the territory... as well as having control of sea lines, and buffer from the oppressive China. But since there's oil reserve and gas invovled, all bets are off.
__________________
Last edited by aohige; 2012-08-22 at 11:12. |
|
2012-08-22, 10:57 | Link #23025 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Special Report: UK banks face scandal over toxic insurance products
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87L09E20120822
__________________
|
2012-08-22, 11:20 | Link #23026 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
I'm not contesting Japanese sovereignty, nor did I miss the landing a couple of weeks back by Chinese activists either.
I don't know where oil and gas reserves lie in the northern parts of the China Sea; the Times article suggested this was more of an issue in the southern areas where there are known reserves and established parcels. I've seen a map of claims in the South China Sea, but not one for the area around the Senkakus. So have there been test drillings, etc., to determine if there are actual petroleum reserves in the area around the Senkakus? Frankly I don't really care how all these claims are worked out as long as it doesn't lead to a shooting war which might involve the US in a confrontation with China. Our ties to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines, not to mention recent importuning by Vietnam, already threaten to embroil America in a conflict in the China Sea. We have enough on our plate right now; you guys work this out among yourselves.
__________________
|
2012-08-22, 11:34 | Link #23027 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: قلوب المؤمنين
|
Regardless of there is actually oil or not, it is the reason behind the Senkaku dispute. Before UN "suggested" that there might be oil deposit in the area in early 1970s, all parties involved were less enthusiastic over the region.
__________________
|
2012-08-22, 11:57 | Link #23028 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
in the 1970s, the US turn over the island to Japan because it was convenient at the time while dismissing both the PRC and the ROC's claim. This issue island are the fault of the US.
__________________
Last edited by Xellos-_^; 2012-08-22 at 12:40. |
|
2012-08-22, 12:47 | Link #23029 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
|
Potsdam_Declaration
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-22, 13:04 | Link #23031 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I would say it is more China's fault based on the reasons why it was held and why it was handed back to Japan in 1972.
Originally the islands were going to be handed over to Nationalist China following World War II as a spoils of war. But China's Civil War stepped up before the San Francisco Treaty was finished and China was not made part of it directly. Later, by the time of the Korean War, Taiwan was given a seperate treaty similar to the San Francisco Treaty to end the conflict with Japan (at that time still under Allied occupation). Mainland China was not part of the deal since by then it was communist and an enemy of the remaining Allies. The islands remained under US control. As far as the Allies are concerned there is only one official China....Nationalist China on Taiwan. Then comes 1972. The last Japanese soldier surrenders. Nixon goes to China and opens relations with the Communists. Because of this, Taiwan "officially" is considered part of Mainland China. The time for the US occupation of the Senkaku ended, but handing it over to Taiwan would mean handing over to China, and they were still communists and they the Vietnam War was ending. The US might open relations, but they were not going to give the Chinese something that could be a problem later. So with the Japanese now fully surrendered and on the slow but steady economic recovery, the islands reverted back to Japan. Without the division of China and its civil war, the islands would have been Chinese by 1950. But because of that war and the political ramifications of the Cold War, by the time it the islands needed to go to someone other than the United States as a caretaker...Japan got them back. There was no longer a need for a spoils of war and Japan was now an ally against Communism.
__________________
|
2012-08-22, 13:06 | Link #23032 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
without US involvement , the Chinese Civil War would never lasted this long. It would have been over sometime in the 50s.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-22, 13:10 | Link #23035 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
It's a bit more complex than that. Chiang did not accept either Senkaku nor the Ryukyus when Roosevelt offered those islands to be administered by China in a conference (I believe it was Cairo) before the end of the war. Given that the sole China of the era rejected administration of the islands, this means that technically they were to be part of Japan or however the Allies (in this case the US) saw fit. Blaming the US or Japan for what China did is blaming the wrong party.
|
2012-08-22, 15:52 | Link #23036 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Speaking of which, is there a Japanese response to those recent demonstrations in China? I must say there are times when I expect the Japanese people to have some anti-Chinese riots in front of the Chinese embassy about a number of things happening... just a matter of showing that Japanese people can play this game too. |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|