|
mystes posted:The idea that the existence of any dubious grounds for asserting precedence automatically establishes a legitimate claim to the territory? quote:And China really did say that they could make a claim for Hawaii so it's not like this is the domain of "nutjobs". The context of that quote was a chinese representative making a rhetorical example of a baseless claim. I don't understand the mental leap it took for you to interpret that quote as "well china might claim hawaii". So yea, it is the domain of nutjobs.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Zo posted:Well, except those US sailors that got a facefull of radioactive plume and are getting hit by cancer by the handfull. Nine of Eight posted:
By the way, this is from an earlier discussion, but where is the evidence this story is made up? I just saw some followup stories about the lawsuits in this case going forward. 71 young sailors are suing with various forms of cancer and other illnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:14
|
|
I believe this has been debunked as being made up last I checked, it was brought up in the energy generation thread.
|
Zo posted:The context of that quote was a chinese representative making a rhetorical example of a baseless claim. I don't understand the mental leap it took for you to interpret that quote as "well china might claim hawaii". Or maybe you assumed I was talking about the newspaper ad? mystes fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
mystes posted:This is completely false. See the actual transcript at http://www.cfr.org/united-states/clintons-remarks-foreign-policy-groups-transformational-trends-2013-forum-november-2012/p29578. It's not in the context of some sort of "rhetorical example of a baseless claim" at all. It's China actually saying, "Well, we could claim Hawaii." Yes, if you read clinton' response it's clearly just rhetorical talk between two representatives. I mean, if you disagree, what do YOU think that quote means? A declaration of intent? You haven't provided an interpretation and your whole point seems to be that someone literally said those words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Zo posted:Yes, if you read clinton' response it's clearly just rhetorical talk between two representatives. Based on the actual context, I think it may be an exaggerated threat, and not one China intends to carry out on, but not at all a "rhetorical example of a baseless claim". If China says that it could make a claim on Hawaii if it wanted do, that makes it not the domain of nutjobs to discuss this issue. mystes fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
mystes posted:Please give a source for your interpretation that it's a "rhetorical example of a baseless claim," in other words China intentionally making a ridiculous example of what type of territorial claim as some sort of reductio ad absurdum of Japan's claims. My source is the context like yours. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to say that as a threat (threat of what? being ridiculed internationally?) and see no other reasonable interpretation. mystes posted:If China says that it could make a claim on Hawaii if it wanted do, that makes it not the domain of nutjobs to discuss this issue. Well it seems you are not very good at reading in context. My original post called him a nutjob for equating the S-D dispute with a theoretical china on hawaii claim. Those are not analogous situations from any reasonable third party perspective. Zo fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Zo posted:My source is the context like yours. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to say that as a threat (threat of what? being ridiculed internationally?) and see no other reasonable interpretation. Do I get to decide politicians are doing things ironically when they do things I don't like? Maybe Abe went to Yasukuni as a rhetorical example of things prime ministers shouldn't do. mystes fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
mystes posted:So you literally think that China was giving it as an example of the type of claim that countries shouldn't make? What is your basis for this conclusion? You might as well speculate that China actually included a "not" somewhere and Clinton just left it out. Like I said, context. First. it's an objectively ridiculous claim by any accounts. The chinese representative would not be so stupid as to not know this being a diplomat. Second, clinton said the quote came up in the middle of a long discussion, i.e. this hawaii claim is not the actual topic at hand. So we have a diplomat throwing out a ridiculous scenario in the middle of a long, related discussion. What else could it mean? An awful threat? See above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Zo posted:Like I said, context. First. it's an objectively ridiculous claim by any accounts. The chinese representative would not be so stupid as to not know this being a diplomat. Second, clinton said the quote came up in the middle of a long discussion, i.e. this hawaii claim is not the actual topic at hand. So we have a diplomat throwing out a ridiculous scenario in the middle of a long, related discussion. What else could it mean? An awful threat? See above. Please provide evidence for your interpretation, since you're the one who thinks you know exactly what it meant (the opposite of the normal meaning of the sentence), and explain why it is a huge ridiculous leap of logic on my part to go from a Chinese diplomat saying that they could make a claim for Hawaii if they wanted to saying that China said they could make a claim for Hawaii if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
mystes posted:I don't give a crap what exactly the Chinese diplomat was thinking. Unless you have proof that they meant the exact opposite of what said (and of what Clinton thought they said, considering she brought it up in the context of China trying to claim as much territory as possible), it is not "nutjob" territory to talk about the fact that China said this, and also not "nutjob" territory for Wibbleman to bring it up when discussing how China handles it's territorial claims (i.e. making claims on anywhere they think they can). Wait, china makes territory claims everywhere they think they can? Where is the official chinese claim on hawaii then? And yes it is a ridiculous nutjob comparison between S-D and a theoretical chinese claim on hawaii. This is true even if china actually claims hawaii tomorrow, because your inability to read context missed the point I made, that it's nutjob territory to equate those two claims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Zo posted:Source please? Guess which islands are right next to the Senkakus. Guess which islands used to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor, even though they were an independent kingdom (hint: their king's palace is done up in red, not purple, as purple is an imperial colour) Guess which islands have been known to be shown on unfinished maps as part of China, though this is fixed before they let the dirty gwailo see them - most notably the publicly leaked map of China's new claims to airspace, that went all the way to the edge of Japan's mainland. Do you have no loving idea of how international diplomacy works? Proxy battles happen ALL the time and right now when China or Korea are claiming some horrible pile of rocks or whatever they're not planning on stopping there, they're testing the limits. I also can't help but notice you ignoring the hell out of the main thrust of my arguement, pointing out how poor China's claims were, and why. Uyoku are vile people, but batshit nationalists, especially on the internet, aren't even close to being a uniquely Japanese thing, so you need to realise that when you come out and poo poo out the sort of things that only an ignorant Chinese nationalist could seriously believe, other people are going to be sceptical of your motives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Guess which islands are right next to the Senkakus. I also find it interesting you seem to think both the S-D and D-T islands are cases of not-japan trying to landgrab. Isn't it more like china:senkaku/diaoyu :: japan:dokdo/takeshima? quote:I also can't help but notice you ignoring the hell out of the main thrust of my arguement, pointing out how poor China's claims were, and why. Uyoku are vile people, but batshit nationalists, especially on the internet, aren't even close to being a uniquely Japanese thing, so you need to realise that when you come out and poo poo out the sort of things that only an ignorant Chinese nationalist could seriously believe, other people are going to be sceptical of your motives. I agree china's claim on S-D is pretty poor but it's miles ahead of a theoretical claim on hawaii. That was the whole point of my original post. If you disagree then I guess we'll agree to disagree because the facts/opinions of the actual claims on each side are beaten to death by this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Moving along, with Hosokawa running on an overwhelmingly anti-nuclear ticket for the Toyko governorship, I'm wondering about what he's capable of doing should he be voted in. I understand that the Tokyo Governor is a relatively powerful role, but what specifically would he be able to do anti-nuclearwise? Turn down planning applications?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
ozza posted:Moving along, with Hosokawa running on an overwhelmingly anti-nuclear ticket for the Toyko governorship, I'm wondering about what he's capable of doing should he be voted in. I understand that the Tokyo Governor is a relatively powerful role, but what specifically would he be able to do anti-nuclearwise? Turn down planning applications? If they ever try to put a nuclear reactor in Hibiya kouen he'll be all over that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
ozza posted:Moving along, with Hosokawa running on an overwhelmingly anti-nuclear ticket for the Toyko governorship, I'm wondering about what he's capable of doing should he be voted in. I understand that the Tokyo Governor is a relatively powerful role, but what specifically would he be able to do anti-nuclearwise? Turn down planning applications? Nothing, it's just the first issue that anyone under 60's shown an interest in for a couple of decades so everyone's trying to milk it. Tamogami's gonna win anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Nothing, it's just the first issue that anyone under 60's shown an interest in for a couple of decades so everyone's trying to milk it. Well that (and the link in the previous post) is pretty depressing. Koizumi at least seems genuine about the cause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Just noticed that Zo is the half-wit who couldn't understand why Panasonic and Mitsubishi Fuso were bad examples of "Japanese companies" (one is German owned, the other would either still be called "Mitsubishi" or would be called "National" if it were typically Japanese) so there's no point in interacting with him.ozza posted:Koizumi at least seems genuine about the cause. Ever since he dropped one of his sons into his old job, I've been sceptical of exactly how much of a political maverick the guy really is. It's entirely possible that he is just doing this to help his politican son make a name for himself. Who knows? ookiimarukochan fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Gah - accidentally double posted
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:
Right you are, it's hard to tell. But if he's stage managing the anti-nuclear push, I think he's doing a good job at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Just noticed that Zo is the half-wit who couldn't understand why Panasonic and Mitsubishi Fuso were bad examples of "Japanese companies" (one is German owned, the other would either still be called "Mitsubishi" or would be called "National" if it were typically Japanese) so there's no point in interacting with him. Isn't Mitsubishi Fuso just the truck company? The real Mitsubishi is still around, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Isn't Mitsubishi Fuso just the truck company? The real Mitsubishi is still around, right? Yeah - but Mitsubishi Fuso and Mitsubishi Bank aren't part of it any more (I assume they have some sort of deal for the name/logo rights - so it's not like Virgin Group behaves, for instance.) Panasonic is a bit weird in that it makes by far the majority of it's money outside Japan (hence the name change) unlike Sony, who make a huge chunk of their profits off Sony Life Insurance even without considering any other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Ummm, speaking as a haole, I'm pretty sure that China could never have claimed the Hawaiian islands, because Hawaii didn't exist until it was founded in 1893 by Sanford Dole. It's basic international law - like how the Native Americans willingly ceded their land to the U.S. and Canada, or how Australia was terra nulllius when the British found it, and Aborigines are just a myth made up by PC lefties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
The new NHK chairman said that every country used sex slaves and that the national broadcaster should agree entirely with the other government at his initial news conference. After a reporter pointed out that it was a news conference he said "I retract everything."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
hadji murad posted:The new NHK chairman said that every country used sex slaves and that the national broadcaster should agree entirely with the other government at his initial news conference. Well, at least he was ready to admit Japan used sex slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Well, at least he was ready to admit Japan used sex slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
hadji murad posted:The new NHK chairman said that every country used sex slaves and that the national broadcaster should agree entirely with the other government at his initial news conference. Has the proportion of warmongers/reactionaries/WWII apologists in positions of influence increased under Abe, or are we simply hearing more about them now because Abe is one of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
sincx posted:Has the proportion of warmongers/reactionaries/WWII apologists in positions of influence increased under Abe, or are we simply hearing more about them now because Abe is one of them? If Momii resigns after his first press conference it's got to be some sort of record. It seems like Abe can do no wrong as far as the public is concerned, but viewed in combination with his desire to make textbooks more nationalistic, I hope this actually causes a real backlash. What's also funny is that NHK didn't report on the controversial comments at all on Saturday; they just showed Momii saying that it was important for the NHK to be neutral (不偏不党). I'll have to see if they covered it in the evening news on Sunday. mystes fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
mystes posted:In this case at least, it's more or less directly his fault since he replaced pretty much the entire executive board in October (the prime minister appoints the NHK executive board with Diet approval, and the board appoints the NHK president). Whoever's in office will do as well as the economy does. That's all anyone really cares about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Just noticed that Zo is the half-wit who couldn't understand why Panasonic and Mitsubishi Fuso were bad examples of "Japanese companies" (one is German owned, the other would either still be called "Mitsubishi" or would be called "National" if it were typically Japanese) so there's no point in interacting with him. IIRC you were the guy who failed all his interviews then was crying about the Japanese corporate machine right? I'd be interested in what you think is a True Japanese Company  sincx posted:Has the proportion of warmongers/reactionaries/WWII apologists in positions of influence increased under Abe, or are we simply hearing more about them now because Abe is one of them? Abe removed the "Japan will never wage war" clause from his party's platform recently so it's pretty obvious what the party line is now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Hashimoto has endorsed NHK president Momii's comment. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
That's hardly surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Sheep posted:That's hardly surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
mystes posted:Hashimoto has endorsed NHK president Momii's comment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Oh well, denying comfort women is nothing. For real revisionist superpowers look no further than the right-wing Sankei Shimbun's Rui Abiru who wrote the following in a piece in 文藝春秋２０１４年の論点１００ about Yasukuni:quote:また、韓国に至っては、問題の当事者ですらない。日本は韓国と戦争していたわけではないし、戦没者をまつる靖国について、韓国に文句を言われる筋合いはもともとないのである。 What fascinating logic! Edit: Here, have a picture of Mr. Abiru: 
mystes fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Pfffft, those stupid Koreans and their historic grievances over being treated like garbage, suffering under a fairly brutal colonial government and forced into doing all sorts of demeaning things that we continually refuse to acknowledge. Just get over it, I know I already have! -------------------------------------------------------------------- "When the Koreans complain about Yasukuni and the textbook issue, all those greedy bastards want is money from the Japanese government!" My cousin basically said that while I was visiting. Cousin, I am so disappointed in you. He ran in an election for some regional or prefectural seat in the Tohoku region a couple of years ago, and in retrospect, it's probably a good thing he lost by some margin. I do get the sense he plans on running again though. Ugh. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Yeah, "get over it" is something I read a lot from over there. Guess what, as the historical aggressors, you aren't the ones who decide when it is to be gotten over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
While "get over it" or "SKorea never had any right to complain about Yasukuni in the first place" are idiotic and really unhelpful comments, am I mistaken in thinking that Japan has tried to address the issue with Korea before? Wasn't there a major payout of reparations in the 90s or something which Japan made but which many Koreans ignore when they bring up comfort women? I'm not trying to say just because Japan gave them hush money that Korea has no right to complain, and the reparations obviously had nothing to do with Yasukuni/people's right to be pissed off when Abe plays the rear end by going to the shrine, but is there not some aspect of the relationship where Japan tried to settle things in good faith and Korea has conveniently forgotten in order to scapegoat their old enemies? Legitimate question, this was something I thought I read a while ago and I'd love to know if I'm wrong about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Japan paid reparations, which were immediately taken by the dictator of South Korea, Park Chung-hee (father of the current president), and used to build factories and such. There's an ongoing lawsuit against the government by the people who should've gotten the money, as they got nothing. There have also been dozens of official apologies. I have yet to meet a Korean who is aware of any of this, and even when I've shown the apologies to otherwise rational Korean friends when this topic came up, they just brushed it off and continued to assert there were no apologies and Japan/Japanese people are inherently evil. Not everyone believes that of course, but it is depressingly common. It's deeply ingrained, I work in schools here and have seen first hand the way kids are taught to hate Japan from early childhood on. I moved to Korea a couple weeks before the Sendai earthquake so one of my earliest experiences was watching third graders celebrating Japan's destruction and writing the death toll on the board with glee. Japan has not made as much of an effort as they could have, but Korea has made zero effort. I believe at some point the Japanese government asked the Chinese government what they could do to make amends and the Chinese told them there was literally nothing they could ever do that would make China forgive them. In that situation I don't know what anyone expects but Japan to say well gently caress off then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Yeah, they've made all kinds of official apologies of various kinds (never exactly the right kind, since there probably is no right kind...a good argument against invading and massacring/enslaving your neighbor countries), but when it comes down to it, the current situation with China and Korea ignoring all of that, and the Japanese government acting like they don't have to apologize, is advantageous for both governments, so why do anything to mess with it? edit: I mean, its advantageous as long as you don't give a poo poo about the feelings of your citizens and the long term future of the region but hahahaha, whatever. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
The fact that the Japanese government has already done a lot to pay reparations and apologize, and their official position could just be that they did bad stuff but it's all been settled, is one of the reasons it's really dumb for them to try to un-apologize now. However, the Japanese right wing thinks that Japan shouldn't acknowledge ever having done anything wrong ever because doing so would be "masochistic" and prevent citizens from achieving the appropriate level of nationalistic fervor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:49
|
|