AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-23, 01:48   Link #61
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
This is so oxymoron.
Even if it is a bluff do you really think a hostile nation will call that bluff?
Part of these type of treaty's function, especially in the atomic age, is to restrict hostile nation of making false moves by stating if you shoot the other will take revenge.
It's the same with NATO or any other mutual security packs and it doesn't work if one does not work closely with the other but the US Military and JSDF have shown so far that the treaty is functioning properly.
What the heck are you talking about? My original point was that a treaty sometimes only goes so far, but your post doesn't seem to relate to in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Academic considerations? I am sure that treaties between nations are not considered a mere piece of paper with words on it. More over, if the US has no intentions to protect Japan from possible hostile threats, then there would be no need to station so many soldiers there. At the same time, there would also be no reason for the Japanese government to fund so much money into the American military bases.

The possibility of military conflict in East Asia is possible, but unlikely for the time being due to a variety of reasons. China's military developments are not a mere research or self-defense usage, considering that no nation aside from North Korea's leadership ambitions at this point in time would actually attack them. Although China doesn't have a strong naval capability, but that depends on which navy capability you are comparing to. Obviously, both the US and Russia are the strongest at the time being. Not sure about Europe..
This secon paragraph (i.e. the sheer unlikelihood of a military conflict) is precisely why I characterized it as an academic consideration. The very term "academic consideration" carries the connotation that it's an interesting question to ponder, but there likely isn't going to be of much practical use.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 02:59   Link #62
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
What the heck are you talking about? My original point was that a treaty sometimes only goes so far, but your post doesn't seem to relate to in any way.
No you just don't understand how a mutual security treaty works as a diplomatic tool.
Let's examine your original point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I think that you're completely incorrect to assume that countries will act precisely as their treaties dictate when an unprecedented crisis hits them. An attack on Japanese soil (especially a nuclear one) easily qualifies as such a crisis.
This is based on asumption that the US does not respond AFTER Japan is attacked but for Japan to be attacked by that hostile nation that hostile nation must decide that US will not honor the treaty and will not retaliated even if they attacked Japan which they have no certainty of.

Mutual security treaty as a deterrent has been working since 1945 and making assumptions of anything happening after being attacked is meaningless until some nation actually calls that bluff.
That is why I called your reasoning oxymoron.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 03:32   Link #63
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Mutual security treaty as a deterrent has been working since 1945 and making assumptions of anything happening after being attacked is meaningless until some nation actually calls that bluff.

That is why I called your reasoning oxymoron.
I'm not sure whether to call you hopeful or naive. Mutual security treaties are nice things to have in times of peace. They promote understanding between two countries and facilitate exchange of information and technology. They are helpful for preserving the peace.

But I wouldn't bet any country's ultimate survival on a mutual defence treaty. First rule of thumb in maintaining national sovereignty: You don't own what you can't defend.

In most cases, I would expect the US to honour its defence agreements with Japan, should it be attacked. But Japan would be foolish to trust completely in such arrangements. That's why the JSDF is already a formidable force in its own right, prevented only by Japan's constitution from growing even more powerful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
China does not need to invade Taiwan anytime soon, because it is already theirs to begin with. Then, it leaves to question as to why they need such a huge army and continue to invest tons of money into their military budget. It's not self-defense, they have multiple targets. However, I doubt China will be making any military move anytime soon, since they intend to build a stronger economy first. It is impossible for any nation to have a war while improving their economy.
I get the feeling you've been reading a bit too much of American foreign policy, and not enough on China's defence philosophy. The PLA is huge, by far the biggest and potentially scariest military in East Asia, yes. But it doesn't take much studying to see that it lacks force projection capabilities. As it now stands, and leaving aside China's nuclear warheads, the PLA is mainly a defensive force.

Suppose the conspiracy theories are true, who would China invade at this point? It makes more money out of working with its neighbours than fighting costly wars against them at the moment, so why fight?

So, like the rest of East Asia, cross-border war is highly unlikely unless someone goes nuts and instigates one.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 07:01   Link #64
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
I'm not sure whether to call you hopeful or naive. Mutual security treaties are nice things to have in times of peace. They promote understanding between two countries and facilitate exchange of information and technology. They are helpful for preserving the peace.

But I wouldn't bet any country's ultimate survival on a mutual defence treaty. First rule of thumb in maintaining national sovereignty: You don't own what you can't defend.
I am neither hopeful nor naive, just writing the facts.
The juggling act of maintaining Japan's national security with regional diplomacy is based on three components;
1. Article 9
2. Mutual security pack with the US
3.JSDF

These three cannot function properly without one another.
JSDF without article 9 may become the main point of foreign criticism especially a likely target by PRC and/or Korea and will offset diplomatic relationship.
Article 9 without backing of the US military will become worthless words which will create fear within the Japanese public.
JSDF without the US mutual security will again result in developing a stronger defence force by public demand that may jeopardize the existance of article 9.

I never said Japan's future relies on the mutual security pack alone and am not underestimating (nor overly confident) the JSDF. After all the JSDF is counted within the top 5 military forces of non-nuclear armament of the world.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 13:55   Link #65
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Hopefully, the new administration will mean more meat to the mutual security treaty between the US and Japan. But seriously.... I'd have not placed bets on the US stepping up quickly to an active threat to Japan under Bush (or McCain) if only because we've done so much damage to our military and stretched it so thin.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 21:35   Link #66
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
I get the feeling you've been reading a bit too much of American foreign policy, and not enough on China's defence philosophy. The PLA is huge, by far the biggest and potentially scariest military in East Asia, yes. But it doesn't take much studying to see that it lacks force projection capabilities. As it now stands, and leaving aside China's nuclear warheads, the PLA is mainly a defensive force.
Incorrect! Perhaps, you have been paying too much attention to PRC propaganda that you have failed to see the actual situation clearly. China's defence philosophy is really about cold war tactics and strategies accompanied by their heavy military presence. Although it is true that they would like to continue their economy improvements for the time being or perhaps even a little longer, say 50 or so years. However, when China reaches a point in which they are superior in both economy and military technology, their current defensive strategy will be switched to their original intention, a military agenda. On the contrary, since it's going to be in another possible 50 years, I might not live that long to see such a day.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 00:00   Link #67
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
^ Sounds like a baseless personal opinion to me. Do you have any facts to back your assertion?

Quote:
China's defence philosophy is really about cold war tactics and strategies accompanied by their heavy military presence.
You are right, though, to say it's a Cold War strategy. More pertinently, China's defence policy is similar to the former USSR, now Russia:

1) Defend the integrity of the motherland. In China's case, that means no negotiation over Taiwan's status as part of the mainland. It still wants to work towards a "one country, two systems" solution, which the Taiwanese are understandably not keen about, having seen how it really works in Hong Kong.

2) Maintain buffer zones at borders. So long as the Central Asian states are militarily weak, China doesn't have much to worry about from that region, and wouldn't bother invading any further. It already controls Xinjiang and Tibet after all, and cultivates a convenient, if sometimes embarrassing, ally in North Korea.


Ultimately, any war potential China develops will be to meet the above two objectives. Pursuing an aggressive war of expansion is silly in the extreme, not when the benefits of economic co-operation far outweighs any potential gains from war. It already has 1.3 billion people to feed and clothe. Why would China want to add to that burden?
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 00:05   Link #68
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Defend the integrity of the motherland. In China's case, that means no negotiation over Taiwan's status as part of the mainland. It still wants to work towards a "one country, two systems" solution, which the Taiwanese are understandably not keen about, having seen how it really works in Hong Kong.
And Tibet too.

Quote:
2) Maintain buffer zones at borders. So long as the Central Asian states are militarily weak, China doesn't have much to worry about from that region, and wouldn't bother invading any further. It already controls Xinjiang and Tibet after all, and cultivates a convenient, if sometimes embarrassing, ally in North Korea.
If in a war, Russia will try to use the Commonwealth of Independent States (NOT THE BRITISH one) to form the USSR again. Or CCCP for you Russophones there. Then that's where the problem starts.
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 00:24   Link #69
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Incorrect! Perhaps, you have been paying too much attention to PRC propaganda that you have failed to see the actual situation clearly. China's defence philosophy is really about cold war tactics and strategies accompanied by their heavy military presence. Although it is true that they would like to continue their economy improvements for the time being or perhaps even a little longer, say 50 or so years. However, when China reaches a point in which they are superior in both economy and military technology, their current defensive strategy will be switched to their original intention, a military agenda. On the contrary, since it's going to be in another possible 50 years, I might not live that long to see such a day.
Fifty years is a long time. Even the best historians cannot predict how the world will be like in fifty years, much less someone on an internet message board. One thing is certain, though - in fifty years the current generation of Chinese leaders will have been replaced. The death of Mao and the subsequent shakeup led to massive economic reforms and "opening up" under Deng; there is no telling what a new generation of Chinese leaders will decide to do.

People give politicians too much credit. If they were so good at planning ahead, the world wouldn't be going through crisis after crisis.

Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-24 at 00:49.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 05:25   Link #70
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
Fifty years is a long time. Even the best historians cannot predict how the world will be like in fifty years, much less someone on an internet message board. One thing is certain, though - in fifty years the current generation of Chinese leaders will have been replaced. The death of Mao and the subsequent shakeup led to massive economic reforms and "opening up" under Deng; there is no telling what a new generation of Chinese leaders will decide to do.

People give politicians too much credit. If they were so good at planning ahead, the world wouldn't be going through crisis after crisis.
Politicans don't plan ahead, unless it's Singapore. Uncanny ability of PAP to predict at most times, like how they refused to give out too big a hongbao (GST rebates) in last year's budget with the reason: "Rainy times will come." Were they right!

It's called Realpolitik. You deal with what you have. That's the normal way of politics. (Unless you have a population as packed, and as small as Singapore -apparently the 2nd most packed SOVEREIGN nation after Monaco)
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 07:40   Link #71
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
People give politicians too much credit. If they were so good at planning ahead, the world wouldn't be going through crisis after crisis.
Have you ever thought that many of these crisis were part of their plans to begin with? In the perspective of the public, many of the military and business crisis were something to be avoided and it is the fault of both the politicians and the wealthy businessmen, but in their perspective, it could have been their sole objective. However, depending on the crisis, it may vary. In some case, it was intended. In other cases, it was not. Also this concept is dependent on the country and its government meaning that it is possible in some nations, yet it is not in some. Taking the current global financial crisis as an example.. It could have been prevented.

Without the help of the slumping economy in America, Obama may not have elected. If the economy was good in America, the Democrats would had most likely lost the elections. Obama's landslide victory was greatly dependent on the hope that people had for the future of America's economy, a possible revival. Aside from that, the Republicans were advocating the need to continue the Iraq War, which was seen by many Americans are the key issue relating to the slumping economy.

In Japan, the economy is also pretty bad right now, the Nikkei-225 is current under the 8000-level. For a period of several months, the seat of the BOJ governor was empty, because the ruling coalition and the largest opposition party were playing political football. That actually put a toll on the economy in the long-run, but also due to those actions, the dovish Fukuda Administration came to an end enabling a firmer stance towards the incooperative North Korea now. Currently, the popularity rate between the Aso Cabinet and the opposition forces can be seen as a tie, even though the DPJ had a higher approval rating during the Fukuda Administration.

In Russia, the most hard-hitted economy, if chosen to ignore the cries of its Russian citizens in South Ossetia would not have been impacted by growing recession fears. When Russia made the choice to escalate the Russo-Georgian military conflict, they had probably chosen to give up part of their economy as an exchange to maintain the strong belief of its citizens towards their government's ability to support and protect them.

Generally, many of the crisis that the world is currently facing are prevent-able, yet politicians chose not to do so for whatever reason they may have. It is not that people are giving too much credit to politicians, but rather to say... One thing is for sure, politicians cannot be trusted. For their ideals and objectives, the people in the world suffer crisis after crisis.

Edit: As to why I am using US, Russia, and Japan as examples. Well, Japan is officially a part of East Asia, which is on-topic. As for the US, Hawaii can be considered as part of Asia and Eastern Russia along with Siberia can be considered as part of Asia. And thus, its on-topic!
__________________

Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2008-11-24 at 07:43. Reason: added explanation
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 07:48   Link #72
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Does the ASEAN matter?
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 08:04   Link #73
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Well, as for the original theme of this thread, I do not think the petty bickering will stop anytime soon.

I have read within this thread, from I assume ethnic Chinese (not necessarily from PRC), that Japan still harbors ambitions to dominate the region which holds no real context. Although they point out some politicians and government official that stepped out of line in stating something of the past war.
I still have not heard of anyone within the government stating in the line of Japan should take up it's former glory or what not.( I will agree with you people if I hear that but not until)
On the other hand we see people swaying blind eyes even though PRC is dangerously piling up their military power upgrading their weapons with a very translucent accountabilty in military research spending and being caught in multiple nations for espionage.

Really people, get real, if a war occurs bullets will not select their targets based on ethnic background.


One more thing about petty bickering, I found this article on the web about a survey a Chinese news service agency did to their people on which nation they hate;

http://www.excite.co.jp/News/china/2...081124015.html

It came out
1.South Korea 40.1%
2. Japan 30.2%
3.India NA
Now how do you think anykind of bickering will end with results like that?
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:01   Link #74
ZephyrLeanne
On a sabbatical
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wellington, NZ
Age: 33
Here we go again for the 4th year..

Quote:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_306277.html
N.Korea rejects UN resolution

SEOUL - NORTH Korea on Monday defiantly rejected a United Nations resolution condemning its human rights record as a political ploy to stifle its socialist system.
Spoiler for full article:
So what do you think...?
__________________
ZephyrLeanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:06   Link #75
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
I have read within this thread, from I assume ethnic Chinese (not necessarily from PRC), that Japan still harbors ambitions to dominate the region which holds no real context.
Oh please, stop playing the victim card. From my perspective, it's you who refuses to listen, and worse, deliberately misrepresent what I've written in this thread. I never claimed that all of Japan harbours ambitions to dominate the region. Except, perhaps, by economic might, but that is now in the past and is no longer quite true today.

Rather, I've repeatedly voiced my misgivings about the intentions of nationalistic elements within the Japanese government.

I did not, and would not, equate these officials with the rest of Japan. I do acknowledge that they are different, and that ordinary Japanese are, by and large, pacifists today, for which I'm grateful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
Although they point out some politicians and government official that stepped out of line in stating something of the past war.
I still have not heard of anyone within the government stating in the line of Japan should take up it's former glory or what not.( I will agree with you people if I hear that but not until)
All right, perhaps you have a point, and that I'm being too critical of these nationalistic officials. I'll gladly concede that it's stretching it a bit far to claim that they want to start another war of agression.

But what is not right, and will never be right, is the continued attempts of these officials to downplay the atrocities of the Sino-Japanese war and World War II.

You say that ordinary Japanese disapprove of their antics. Well then, how come I don't hear more of them coming forward to condemn these officials?

Is it a case of ordinary Japanese not caring about the truth? Is it a case of quiet acquiescence of these officials' claims? Given the widespread lack of information, within Japan, of what truly transpired in East Asia during World War II, how many ordinary Japanese know enough to show up these nationalists for the dangerous fools that they are?

Those are the questions which bother people in the rest of East Asia. And please, it's not just ethnic Chinese who bear a grudge. Koreans too. Filippinos as well. East Asians well remember the Japanese atroicties of the past. So long as ordinary Japanese allow revisionist officials to run around unchecked, Japan will never fully redeem forgiveness in our eyes.

Which is a great pity. I do like the Japan of today, and I do wish we could move past the ghosts of the past. But the ball lies in Japan's court. Japan must do more to own up to its past, instead of continuing to make insincere apologies.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:06   Link #76
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
Well, as for the original theme of this thread, I do not think the petty bickering will stop anytime soon.

I have read within this thread, from I assume ethnic Chinese (not necessarily from PRC), that Japan still harbors ambitions to dominate the region which holds no real context. Although they point out some politicians and government official that stepped out of line in stating something of the past war.
I still have not heard of anyone within the government stating in the line of Japan should take up it's former glory or what not.( I will agree with you people if I hear that but not until)
On the other hand we see people swaying blind eyes even though PRC is dangerously piling up their military power upgrading their weapons with a very translucent accountabilty in military research spending and being caught in multiple nations for espionage.

Really people, get real, if a war occurs bullets will not select their targets based on ethnic background.


One more thing about petty bickering, I found this article on the web about a survey a Chinese news service agency did to their people on which nation they hate;

http://www.excite.co.jp/News/china/2...081124015.html

It came out
1.South Korea 40.1%
2. Japan 30.2%
3.India NA
Now how do you think anykind of bickering will end with results like that?
If you did the survey in Japan or South Korea you'll probably come up with similar results.

It's the standard ethnic nationalism mixed with historical bad blood that nations bordering one another tend to have.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:18   Link #77
nagare
魔女狩り続行中
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
One more thing about petty bickering, I found this article on the web about a survey a Chinese news service agency did to their people on which nation they hate;

http://www.excite.co.jp/News/china/2...081124015.html

It came out
1.South Korea 40.1%
2. Japan 30.2%
3.India NA
Now how do you think anykind of bickering will end with results like that?
1) It seem like that was an internet poll of 12000 posters not a scientific study. The article doesn't say who did the study or who (age group, demographics, etc) the samplings were taken from. Maybe it was the *Xinhua/China View news agency who did the poll, but it doesn't mean it was a scientific study, and by looking what that article reported, I doubt it was.

*I'm not sure if that's the correct English name, but that's what their homepage translated it to

2) It's very hard to take a poll seriously when the first line is:
イエス・キリストは韓国人だった、サッカーは韓国で生まれた、寿司は韓国人が作り出したなど、韓国人による 他国文化の「乗っ取り」は後を絶たない。
Jesus Christ was a Korean, soccer was born in Korea, sushi was also made in Korea, etc; the Koreans "take over" of other countries' culture seem endless.

If this is the main reason why the Chinese posters "hate" Korea, then the world is a pretty safe place. I doubt China will use its warmachine to "correct" the history of soccer and sushi or go after Jesus in the Korea Peninsula.

3) 嫌いな国ランキングで日本は一位から二位にダウンしただけでなく、好きな国ランキングで三位に なっている。

これ笑うしかないよ~ 中国人にもツンデレいるもんだな
__________________


nagare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:19   Link #78
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Have you ever thought that many of these crisis were part of their plans to begin with? In the perspective of the public, many of the military and business crisis were something to be avoided and it is the fault of both the politicians and the wealthy businessmen, but in their perspective, it could have been their sole objective. However, depending on the crisis, it may vary. In some case, it was intended. In other cases, it was not. Also this concept is dependent on the country and its government meaning that it is possible in some nations, yet it is not in some. Taking the current global financial crisis as an example.. It could have been prevented.
That sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory, to me. I doubt anybody in the US wanted to have a financial crisis. What would they stand to gain? The Democrats may have been elected because the Republicans failed to prevent the crisis, but now they get to inherit the even harder job of addressing the crisis. If they fail to do that Obama could be out of a job in four years or even sooner.

Meanwhile, the crisis has been building up in the financial sector for decades. Some people did see it coming but most people were caught up in the euphoria of a bubble economy and thought it'd never end. I'm skeptical of human error being blamed on "ingenious" political planning. Politicians aren't geniuses, they're opportunists.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:31   Link #79
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Have you ever thought that many of these crisis were part of their plans to begin with? In the perspective of the public, many of the military and business crisis were something to be avoided and it is the fault of both the politicians and the wealthy businessmen, but in their perspective, it could have been their sole objective....etc
There are so many things wrong in your post I don't even know where to begin making a critique. You demonstrate an inability to separate empty opinion from fact-based assertion.

Case in point:
Quote:
In Russia, the most hard-hitted economy, if chosen to ignore the cries of its Russian citizens in South Ossetia would not have been impacted by growing recession fears.
That is wild. You're claiming that Russia could have avoided recession if it chose to ignore South Ossetia? How are the two issues even related to begin with?

Quote:
Taking the current global financial crisis as an example.. It could have been prevented.
Naive. Yes, you're right in that the current economic crisis could have been prevented, but in good times, it's very hard to see when extreme leverage becomes too extreme. That is the very nature of all economic bubbles. It says more about weaknesses in human psychology than about the lack of political will to do the right thing.

I could go on, but really, there's not much point. What I can say is that it's not that you're not on the right track, but rather that your analysis is too shallow, and fails to take into account many human realities.

In a democracy, politicians have a need to win elections, in order to stay in power to carry out whatever reforms that need to be carried out. It doesn't take much to see where conflicts of interest would soon arise. It's an indication of inherent flaws within democratic government, which has a tendency to morph into the mob rule if every citizen in the country is not careful.

In other words, it's not just politicians who are to blame for the world's problems, but every one of us. Shifting blame is the first step towards perpetuating our crises, instead of solving them.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 13:25   Link #80
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Although they point out some politicians and government official that stepped out of line in stating something of the past war.
I still have not heard of anyone within the government stating in the line of Japan should take up it's former glory or what not.( I will agree with you people if I hear that but not until)
Perhaps Tri-ring would explain to me the difference between "politicians, government officials, military" and "anyone within the government" in denying that some parts of the Japanese power structure wouldn't like a return to military dominance?

I guess the most amusing thing to me is how some people can see the mote in everyone else's eye but fail to notice their own potential issues in that regard.

And no, I'm not "ethnic Chinese".... and yes, the PRC should be kept under a spotlight as well... and so should the Korean nationalists.... and everyone else's noisy neighbors.

Responding to an identified problem by pointing out everyone's problems --- doesn't really address the problem, does it?

I love Japan, I love the USA, heck, I love Canada --- it doesn't mean I don't see their blemishes...
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.