Japan Threatens To Fire On Chinese Fighters, China: There Will Be No Second Shot

[Neil]

Japan should have squashed the whole incident by wiping out the Chinese race back in the 30s and 40s when they had the chance.  But now we're stuck with China as an enemy of all civilization.

[LaCroix]

Japan should have squashed the whole incident by wiping out the Chinese race back in the 30s and 40s when they had the chance.  But now we're stuck with China as an enemy of all civilization.

naturally. after all, nixon recognizes what true china is 

[Neil]

A weapon to be wielded against the Soviets that should have been discarded after the Cold War.

[LaCroix]

 

[Neil]

They are what they are, and their interests are fundamentally opposed to our own.  And you know, if they had the advancement of humanity on their mind, I could live with that, but they don't.

[Josquius]

i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?

Incorrect.
That Japan formally annexed the islands in the same year they won a war with China was a horrible (for the current situation, irrelevant in the past) concidence. They had been investigating ownership of the islands for years before that and found that nobody owned them.


What irks me about the situation is the way both sides go on about the islands being integral territory. They're really not. Forgetting whether they're Japanese or (lol) Chinese for the moment, whichever side they belong to they're minor rocks on the arse end of nowhere.

[Maximus]

i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?

Why would they belong to the PRC or the ROC? Neither of these entities existed in 1895, so obviously that would not be reverting back to their original owner.

[LaCroix]

Incorrect.
That Japan formally annexed the islands in the same year they won a war with China was a horrible (for the current situation, irrelevant in the past) concidence. They had been investigating ownership of the islands for years before that and found that nobody owned them.


What irks me about the situation is the way both sides go on about the islands being integral territory. They're really not. Forgetting whether they're Japanese or (lol) Chinese for the moment, whichever side they belong to they're minor rocks on the arse end of nowhere.

now tyr, i realize you've gone full native. i understand your position, and your quick response. really, i do--there must be a number of papers and reports on these islands that you hear of daily. i am not as worldly as you, tyr, however, i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895. you may think they had already owned them, and only made the official announcement conveniently after they had defeated a major Power located within their vicinity, but just like comfort women, Japanese truth is not so easily reached

[LaCroix]

Why would they belong to the PRC or the ROC? Neither of these entities existed in 1895, so obviously that would not be reverting back to their original owner.

oh for fu-- sake

i'm cutting this debate right in the bud, because we've attempted this before

[Admiral Yi]

i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan

You got any documentation?  I thought these islands were historically not inhabited.

, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895.

What difference does that make?

[Maximus]

oh for fu-- sake

i'm cutting this debate right in the bud, because we've attempted this before

Good move, it's a ridiculous idea.

[Josquius]

now tyr, i realize you've gone full native. i understand your position, and your quick response. really, i do--there must be a number of papers and reports on these islands that you hear of daily. i am not as worldly as you, tyr, however, i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895. you may think they had already owned them, and only made the official announcement conveniently after they had defeated a major Power located within their vicinity, but just like comfort women, Japanese truth is not so easily reached

Nope, no propeganda or anything. This is just a case of Japan clearly being in the right. With the Liancourts and Kurils things are more complicated but the Senkakus are a pretty hard and fast case of Chinese dickery.

The islands were never Chinese.
Things are complicated a little bit by the traditional Chinese world view. It was rather different to the modern/western world view where we view the world as a bunch of different nations. To China the world was China, its just the emperor was generous/didn't want to waste his time governing barbarians/whatever. China didn't interact with foreign countries as equals, it expected them to pay tribute to it.
The islands were known about by the Chinese of a few hundred years ago. The route between China and Okinawa was pretty well navigated and they were used as signposts along the way. Since China ruled the world they of course belonged to China...in much the same way that Japan itself, Korea, Vietnam, England, etc... belonged to China.
China never actually bothered to do anything with the islands though. Since it felt the world was Chinese it never felt the need to go through actually claiming the islands and doing anything with them. Nor did anyone else as they were just irrelevant rocks, in the late 19th century Japan went through the proper channels of checking they didn't belong to anyone then claimed them as many other small rocks were claimed by other countries in the same period.
They remained Japanese ever since, excluding the American occupation, they weren't covered under the treaties demanding the return of lands Japan took from China as Japan hadn't taken them from China. Considering they're irrelevant rocks and how Japan was having much more significant possessions taken away from it you'd think that giving them back to China would be a pretty uncontroversial move if they had truly once been Chinese, no?

And comfort women? Eh?

[LaCroix]

I thought these islands were historically not inhabited.

What difference does that make?

they were not inhabited, indeed, by neither japan nor china. now, which claimed the islands first is the true question

might does not make right, i guess

Good move, it's a ridiculous idea.

come now, i've realized the futility of arguing this issue with you given the past debate, and acknowledge no mutual consensus will be reached, and you respond with "hehe, i win," - that's not very sportsmanlike!

Nope, no propeganda or anything. This is just a case of Japan clearly being in the right. With the Liancourts and Kurils things are more complicated but the Senkakus are a pretty hard and fast case of Chinese dickery.

The islands were never Chinese.
Things are complicated a little bit by the traditional Chinese world view. It was rather different to the modern/western world view where we view the world as a bunch of different nations. To China the world was China, its just the emperor was generous/didn't want to waste his time governing barbarians/whatever. China didn't interact with foreign countries as equals, it expected them to pay tribute to it.
The islands were known about by the Chinese of a few hundred years ago. The route between China and Okinawa was pretty well navigated and they were used as signposts along the way. Since China ruled the world they of course belonged to China...in much the same way that Japan itself, Korea, Vietnam, England, etc... belonged to China.
China never actually bothered to do anything with the islands though. Since it felt the world was Chinese it never felt the need to go through actually claiming the islands and doing anything with them. Nor did anyone else as they were just irrelevant rocks, in the late 19th century Japan went through the proper channels of checking they didn't belong to anyone then claimed them as many other small rocks were claimed by other countries in the same period.
They remained Japanese ever since, excluding the American occupation, they weren't covered under the treaties demanding the return of lands Japan took from China as Japan hadn't taken them from China. Considering they're irrelevant rocks and how Japan was having much more significant possessions taken away from it you'd think that giving them back to China would be a pretty uncontroversial move if they had truly once been Chinese, no?

And comfort women? Eh?

never mind on the comfort women, just a silly remark on my part

now tyr, this is now a case of, erm.. the world belonging to china... this is a case of islands that were visited throughout history by china, and recognized as legitimate chinese territory, just as all those little islands off all those countries in the world are generally recognized as belonging to the nations that claim them. - Not to imperial Powers that annex them during a war and then a hundred years later, because they never handed them over, they state those islands are theirs. there are no official documents on many islands that exist off the coast of a Power, which are rightfully considered to belong to such Power

now, i realize this issue will never, ever, be settled and that you will likely continue to believe japan rightfully owns these worthless, uninhabited islands. i will point out that the japanese ambassador to china, in 2012, informed the government that it would cause a great issue between japan and china, and he was immediately replaced because of it. your initial reaction may be: "well of course! japan owns the islands, why should she hand them over to china, regardless of how unimportant they are?" ..and you would be acting just like every other japanese citizen in this endless strife over a handful of pointless islands..

so i guess i've nothing further to add

[Admiral Yi]

might does not make right, i guess

Might very much makes right when the loser signs a treaty acknowledging the winner's territorial claims.

Though I'm getting the sense from Squeeze's posts that this island was annexed unilaterally, not handed over in a treaty.

[LaCroix]

might does not make right, i guess

Might very much makes right when the loser signs a treaty acknowledging the winner's territorial claims.

Though I'm getting the sense from Squeeze's posts that this island was annexed unilaterally, not handed over in a treaty.

i don't know who squeeze is, sorry.. tyr? here, an enjoyable read. i thought not to quote it or add it to my argument as i did not see how it would really convince anyone who is iron enough to remain unconviceable

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

when a loser signs a treaty, or consents to a decision, that a Party has enforced upon it through force, that does not make right ... surely you can see how awkward it would be if that were the case