politics

Hatoyama says DPJ has surrendered in war against vested interests

56 Comments
By Linda Sieg

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

Hatoyama’s successor, Yoshihiko Noda,

Uh, duh, I think you missed a PM in there. Or was Kan so forgetable that you already have?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Funny. Loopy has desperately tried to stay in the spotlight after he stepped down as PM, but little if any of the Japanese media would listen to this moron. I guess this is his media of last resort.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Good old Loopie; making promises he could never have kept, then blaming successors for not keeping them. He's correct about the surrendering to vested interests, but the man himself surrendered after less than a year in office.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hatoyama's problems with vested interests pale in comparison to those of Mr. Obama's (or any other US president).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regret to say Hatoyama was a total failure as prime minister. He was not able to practice what he preaches. Not then and I doubt now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He is correct on this however , DPJ,s position today is completely different from 2009. Very dissapointing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It doesn't matter. I've been around since the bubble broke in 1990. Until Japan allows the people to directly vote for a prime minister with a designated term of office nothing will change much.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And who is the vested interest of all vested interests in Japan? Bureaucrats? No. Big corporations? Not at all.

The vested interest of all vested interests is someone in Washington who was upset "with his call for ... a more equal partnership with its security ally the United States." Hatoyama even suggested that Futenma's function be moved abroad or at least outside Okinawa Prefecture.

As far as military base issues are concerned, Japanese bureaucrats act according as Washington nods or nods not, and so when they saw Washington was upset about Hatoyama's call for a more equal partnership with the U.S. as well as his call for Futenma's relocation outside Okinawa, they were united to resist his policy as a body. How could a government survive without bureaucrats' cooperation in handling foreign affairs?

So you can guess who was the vested interest of all vested interests in Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's rich coming from the guy whose biggest campaign contributions are from his mother.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a nut shell Hatoyama's main problem was that there were too many strong, diverse, and often contradictory views within the government and it was too difficult to shape them into a coherent policy without angering key members of his government . Hence Hatoyama was a weak leader not able to navigate through the confusions and make tough decisions Eventually the Futenma base issue became the last straw and the rest is history as we all know.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Smith - for all the many issues with Hatoyama, the selling out of the DPJ to vested interests started with Kan, and was roundly completed by Noda. I could run off a shopping list of problems with Hatoyama, but what vested interests outside the party exactly did he sell out to?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Kan was the best PM in a long, long while. But he had to deal with the LDP-Nuclear Industry decades of corruption and looking the other way after the meltdown. Thank God Hatoyama was not PM then. Or any of the LDP PM in the last 20 years.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Patrick Smash - are you kidding? Perhaps you missed the jigyou shiwake in public gymnasiums, that were promptly stopped after Kan came in and the ministry of finance regained control of government. The backlash against the DPJ in the upper house election had much more to do with Kan's reversal on spending cuts and the promise not to raise the sales tax than anything Hatoyama did - the very worst of which was making a silly promise about the US he should have known better than to make.

Kan made the manifesto a lie more than Hatoyama did - and Noda has thrown away the script and gone headlong into basically running on bureaucratic and LDP agendas instead completely ignoring the public. And on that final point, we agree about the conclusion that the DPJ under Noda will not only be decimated, but may very well cease to even exist 12 months from now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The locals will fall into line and achieve harmony in their mantra that the DPJ cannot be trusted, and then render tribute to the LDP for at least a generation, expecting not even a token attempt at accountability.

And for Hatoyama to express disappointment in anyone else's achievements is my nomination for glass-house-stone-thrower of the year.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

voiceofokinawa Aug. 26, 2012 - 04:16PM JST

Of course, you are correct. However, it is difficult for the Western ex-pats and Japanophiles here to admit that the US influence in Japan overwhelms the ability for anyone to effectively change the course of the nation. Hatoyama was not a strong leader but the issues that Ozawa/Hatoyama identified in the DPJ manifesto, which swept the DPJ into power in 2009, were spot on. The ouster of Hatoyama was considered a victory by Washington and the Washington hands in Tokyo. One can debate the trivia about Hatoyama, but not who was the force behind his departure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am very surprised people still pay attention to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how this idiot graduated from stanford.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And who is the vested interest of all vested interests in Japan? Bureaucrats? No. Big corporations? Not at all. The vested interest of all vested interests is someone in Washington who was upset "with his call for ... a more equal partnership with its security ally the United States." Hatoyama even suggested that Futenma's function be moved abroad or at least outside Okinawa Prefecture. As far as military base issues are concerned, Japanese bureaucrats act according as Washington nods or nods not, and so when they saw Washington was upset about Hatoyama's call for a more equal partnership with the U.S. as well as his call for Futenma's relocation outside Okinawa, they were united to resist his policy as a body. How could a government survive without bureaucrats' cooperation in handling foreign affairs? So you can guess who was the vested interest of all vested interests in Japan.

Of course, you are correct. However, it is difficult for the Western ex-pats and Japanophiles here to admit that the US influence in Japan overwhelms the ability for anyone to effectively change the course of the nation. Hatoyama was not a strong leader but the issues that Ozawa/Hatoyama identified in the DPJ manifesto, which swept the DPJ into power in 2009, were spot on. The ouster of Hatoyama was considered a victory by Washington and the Washington hands in Tokyo. One can debate the trivia about Hatoyama, but not who was the force behind his departure.

What nonsense. This article discusses former PM Hatoyama, and his assertion that his party has failed to live up to its campaign pledges. Asserting that the U.S. somehow influenced his downfall or is anyway involved in Japanese domestic politics is pure conspiracy theory lunacy. If what you allege were true, California rice would be sold throughout Japan at U.S. prices and American lawyers would be accredited and practicing law in every Japanese court room. Do you think the U.S. pulls the strings with Keidanren, the Farmers Lobby, Japan Tobacco? Please, if you believe that it only confirms you're blogging from Beijing.........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman,

I said: "As far as military base issues are concerned, Japanese bureaucrats act according as Washington nods or nods not, and so when they saw Washington was upset about Hatoyama's call for a more equal partnership with the U.S. as well as his call for Futenma's relocation outside Okinawa, they were united to resist his policy as a body." To this, you counter: "Asserting that the U.S. somehow influenced his downfall or is anyway involved in Japanese domestic politics is pure conspiracy theory lunacy."

You also argue that, if I were correct, "California rice would be sold in Japan at U.S. prices..." Look, I'm not talking about economy or trade but about the military base issues. Before simplistically calling the other's argument "conspiracy theory lunatic," you must present evidence that Japanese defense (and the Foreign Affairs Department's North American affairs-charged) bureaucrats do not follow a defense policy line decided on in Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Magosaki Ukeru's recent book, "The Real Picture of Post-War Japanese History", tells an insider story told by a former Director of International Affairs at Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about why Japanese public servants are so subservient to the U.S. government in disregard of their compatriots' welfare. Anyone who is rumored to be disliked by the U.S. government is doomed to be demoted or have little chance to get promoted.

Even prime ministers who tried an independent course of foreign policy have been eliminated from the office. On the list of eliminated prime ministers are: Shigemitsu Mamoru, Ashida Hitoshi, Hatoyama Ichiro, Ishibashi Tanzan, Tanaka Kakuei, Hosokawa Moriteru and Hatoyama Yukio (grandson of Hatoyama Ishiro).

That explains why it's so difficult for Okinawa to get Tokyo to listen to its urgent voice on this excessive U.S. military presence and the hazards it brings about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction:

Shigemitsu Mamoru was not a prime minister. He was a foreign affairs minister. But in the aftermath of the war and when in dealing with the GHQ a foreign affairs minister had almost the same authority as a prime minister.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You also argue that, if I were correct, "California rice would be sold in Japan at U.S. prices..." Look, I'm not talking about economy or trade but about the military base issues.

OK, I see, you're talking about strictly public servants who impact or direct military/defense issues and policy......

Magosaki Ukeru's recent book, "The Real Picture of Post-War Japanese History", tells an insider story told by a former Director of International Affairs at Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about why Japanese public servants are so subservient to the U.S. government in disregard of their compatriots' welfare. Anyone who is rumored to be disliked by the U.S. government is doomed to be demoted or have little chance to get promoted. Even prime ministers who tried an independent course of foreign policy have been eliminated from the office. On the list of eliminated prime ministers are: Shigemitsu Mamoru, Ashida Hitoshi, Hatoyama Ichiro, Ishibashi Tanzan, Tanaka Kakuei, Hosokawa Moriteru and Hatoyama Yukio (grandson of Hatoyama Ishiro).

Uh, I see you've changed your mind and now reference a book that says all Japanese public servants are doing Washington's wishes.... By the way, given your admiration for Mr Ukeru's book, I have several other recommendations that may interest you - one alleges the Apollo 11 moon landings were all staged here on earth, and the other that the March 2011 tsunami wasn't caused by an earthquake but by an underwater nuclear missile explosion aboard a decrepit, old Russian submarine.....

That explains why it's so difficult for Okinawa to get Tokyo to listen to its urgent voice on this excessive U.S. military presence and the hazards it brings about.

This article is about Hatoyama and his allegation that the DJP is not following its policy platform - your spurious claim that some (all?) GOJ bureaucrats kow-tow to Washington's wishes and how that this somehow relates to US basing decisions on Okinawa is not pertinent to this article and needs to be taken to some other thread/forum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman,

If you call my argument "conspiracy theory lunatic" and this time "spurious," you must present evidence and substantiate your claim why you think so. I suggest you read Magosaki's book first before lambasting and disparaging it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm discussing Hatoyama, not Noda nor Kan. So my commentary is relevant to the article. Even my introduction of Magosaki's book is pertinent to the article. Magosaki implies the U.S. government was somehow involved in the downfall of a number of post-war Japanese prime ministers, the latest victim of whom was Yukio Hatoyama.

Still, you want to say my commentary is irrevent to the article?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, no further bickering please. Focus your comments on what is in the story and not at each other.

VOA, I defer to the Moderator's view as to whether your comments are pertinent or not.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's been two rival conservative camps vying for supremacy in post-war Japanese politics: the one camp thinking it's good for Japan to be dictated by the U.S. in matters of foreign policy, and the other trying to take the initiative in forging independent foreign policy. Hatoyama belongs in the latter camp.

As the article says, he raised, then dashed, our hopes that the Futenma air base could be moved out of Okinawa. As to why his Futenma-off-Okinawa scheme had to come back to where it originally started, he said the more he studied the security environment, the more convinced he became that Futenma's functions must be relocated within Okinawa, that is, to Henoko.

He was naive enough to betray later that he had said it all for the sake of convenience. Naturally, Okinawa became outrageous with him like hell. Note, however, that he had to renege on his promise because of enormous pressure from angry Washington, eating dirt. After that, all that remained for him to do was resign from premiership, and resign he did soon after.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Prime ministers who tried to take the initiative in forging independent foreign policy vis-a-vis the U.S. were similarly eliminated from their office. This means Japan must always remain an easily manipulable U.S. dependency, unable to say anything about altering the status quo of Okinawa as America's military colony. Hatoyama at least knew it and tried to dip into altering this unjustness, only to face his downfall.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He was naive enough to betray later that he had said it all for the sake of convenience. Naturally, Okinawa became outrageous with him like hell. Note, however, that he had to renege on his promise because of enormous pressure from angry Washington, eating dirt. After that, all that remained for him to do was resign from premiership, and resign he did soon after.

Invalid assumption. How do you know it was pressure from Washington and not pressure from the Japanese public?

Prime ministers who tried to take the initiative in forging independent foreign policy vis-a-vis the U.S. were similarly eliminated from their office.

Over-generalization. Again, maybe they were defeated because they were pursuing polices the Japanese public didn't want.

This means Japan must always remain an easily manipulable U.S. dependency, unable to say anything about altering the status quo of Okinawa as America's military colony. Hatoyama at least knew it and tried to dip into altering this unjustness, only to face his downfall.

Convenient cop-out. Blame a third party and you release yourself from the responsibility to undertake civic action to change what you do not like. I believe you've heard the phrase before; All talk, no action.........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hatoyama was informed through various channels - bureaucrats as well as the media - that Washington was incensed at his call for Futenma's relocation outside Okinawa and also his calll for a more equal partnership with the United States. Isn't that pressure and intimidation? When asked to reduce this excessive military footprint from Okinawa, wouldn't tt be courteous of the U.S. to act accordingly? Why be incensed?

I said: "Prime ministers who tried to take the initiative in forging independent foreign policy vis-a-vis the U.S. were similarly eliminated from their office." You are free to call my statement over-generalization. But by dubbing it over-generalization, you have already admitted there's some truth in it. Yasuhiro Nakasone, a staunch pro-American former prime minister, insinuates in his autobiography that Kakuei Tanaka was intrigued into losing his political life by the U.S. government because of his initiative to seal a friendship treaty with China.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hatoyama was informed through various channels - bureaucrats as well as the media - that Washington was incensed at his call for Futenma's relocation outside Okinawa and also his calll for a more equal partnership with the United States. Isn't that pressure and intimidation? When asked to reduce this excessive military footprint from Okinawa, wouldn't tt be courteous of the U.S. to act accordingly? Why be incensed?

Washington was disappointed that Hatoyama reneged on a previously agreed to bilateral agreement, a very un-Statesman like thing to do. However, domestic issues were much more key to his downfall.. More importantly, if he would have implemented the 2006 ATARA Agreement as agreed, the MV-22s would now be landing at the much safer Camp Schwab, and Futenma would be closed. This is clearly his greatest failure.

I said: "Prime ministers who tried to take the initiative in forging independent foreign policy vis-a-vis the U.S. were similarly eliminated from their office." You are free to call my statement over-generalization. But by dubbing it over-generalization, you have already admitted there's some truth in it.

Huh?

Yasuhiro Nakasone, a staunch pro-American former prime minister, insinuates in his autobiography that Kakuei Tanaka was intrigued into losing his political life by the U.S. government because of his initiative to seal a friendship treaty with China.

Far-fetched. His web of lies and corruption had more to do with his downfall than anything the US may have did.

Your argument that the US is somehow controlling events in Japan is unconvincing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There was some confusion on my part about facts concerning Tanaka and Nakasone. Tanaka signed the Japan-China Joint Declaration, thus restoring normal diplomatic relations with China, which is said to have infuriated Washington (the Nixon government) so much.

Nakasone speculated Tanaka's downfall was due to his independent oil policy, not his friendly approach to China. At any rate, Nakasone apparently thought that Tanaka had been victimized by the U.S. government's intrigue.

Of course, as you say, Tanaka's downfall may have much to do with his money-brokering predisposition. But there's a wide-spread speculation in Japan that his downfall was caused by Washington's intrigue.

Well, I may be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

voiceofokinawa: "When asked to reduce this excessive military footprint from Okinawa, wouldn't tt be courteous of the U.S. to act accordingly? Why be incensed?"

How soon we forget, eh? or is it just a case of selective memory? The reason for being incensed is Hatoyama winked at the US and said "trust me", as in, you'll get what you want, then turned around and started saying the same thing to Okinawans. If you don't think it was a scandal, why did Hatoyama resign?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There was some confusion on my part about facts concerning Tanaka and Nakasone. Tanaka signed the Japan-China Joint Declaration, thus restoring normal diplomatic relations with China, which is said to have infuriated Washington (the Nixon government) so much.

That the US would be infuriated with Tanaka courting China seems to be incongruent with history, as Nixon himself went to China in 1972 and normalized relations, seeking closer Chinese ties to offset the Soviet Union. One would think he would encourage closer Chinese-Japan relations.

Of course, as you say, Tanaka's downfall may have much to do with his money-brokering predisposition. But there's a wide-spread speculation in Japan that his downfall was caused by Washington's intrigue.

Yes, conspiracy theories always have their proponents.

Well, I may be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

Uh, I am unfamiliar with this idiom, and my grandmother passed away many years ago.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To smithinjapan (Sep. 10, 2012 - 04:27PM JST):

Certainly, it was not Hatoyama's "believe-me" remark that infuriated Washington because he flip-flopped his earlier promise to Okinawa to the effect that Futenma's functions would be moved at least outside Okinawa, thus making good his promise to Obama.

Then, what incensed and irritated Washington so much?

The above article is the answer to this question. It says: "Hatoyama, who upset some in Washington with his call for an “East Asian Community” and a more equal partnership with its security ally the United States, said any perception he had meant to exclude the United States was wrong."

As post-war Japanese history clearly shows, Washington hates Japan pursuing an independent foreign policy line. There are a number of prime ministers who fell victim to this U.S. line: Ichiro Hatoyama (grandfather of Yukio Hatoyama), Tanzan Ishibashi, Kakuei Tanaka, to list a few. So it was Hatoyama's independent foreign policy line that incensed Washington so much, not his "believe me" remark at all.

To lincolnman (Sep. 10, 2012 - 07:32PM JST):

The U.S. couldn't normalize diplomatic relations with China until 1979 even though the Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China issued on February 28, 1972 had pledged the two nations would normalize bilateral diplomatic relations. So your statement suggesting Nixon normalized U.S.-China relations in 1972 is incorrect.

Japan, on the other hand, bypassed the U.S. when Tanaka initiated Japan-China normalization on September 29, 1972. It is said that the Nixon administration was incensed like hell about Tanaka's independent diplomatic initiative, accusing him to have stolen the fruit the U.S. had taken so much pains to nurture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. couldn't normalize diplomatic relations with China until 1979 even though the Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China issued on February 28, 1972 had pledged the two nations would normalize bilateral diplomatic relations. So your statement suggesting Nixon normalized U.S.-China relations in 1972 is incorrect.

Yes, you are quite correct, however, while formal normalization of relations did not take place until 1979 (after Mao's death), the Joint communique in 1972 began the normalization process, and therefore, the content of my argument that the US would not have opposed closer Japan-China relations remains valid.

Japan, on the other hand, bypassed the U.S. when Tanaka initiated Japan-China normalization on September 29, 1972. It is said that the Nixon administration was incensed like hell about Tanaka's independent diplomatic initiative, accusing him to have stolen the fruit the U.S. had taken so much pains to nurture.

This argument does not seem consistent with historical facts - if the US had already began normalization with China, why wouldn't it want its main Asian ally to not do so? Further, the Nixon administration during this period was consumed with the Watergate scandal, and had little if any time to be worried about what Japan was doing with China. This argument that the US is somehow to blame for Tanaka's downfall seems to be one deliberately employed by his many right wing supporters and faction members, current and past, to deflect and displace his own responsibility (and theirs) in his downfall.

Well, I may be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

And this means?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your assumption that "the U.S. would not have opposed closer Japan-China relations" doesn't stand the facts. Magosaki's book describes how furious Henry Kissinger was about Japan's initiative to normalize diplomatic relations with China ahead of and without consent of the U.S. Kissinger is said to have barked at U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam E. F. Bunker, saying: "Of all the treacherous sons of bitches, the Japs take the cake" (Magosaki, p. 272).

I don't believe Magosaki book can be classified as "fact", it is merely his opinion, - one I think is inconsistent with history. Kissinger is about as taciturn a diplomat as there is - and it is extremely far-fetched to believe he said the quote attributed to him in this book.

You wonder why the U.S. wouldn't want Japan, a major Asian ally, to normalize relations with China since the U.S. had already begun doing so. I myself would like to think that way, but the reality was not so. The Nixon administration, like any administration before it and after, hated Japan taking a diplomatic initiative in international affairs, China affairs especially.

Not supported by historical facts. All US administrations from Nixon onward encouraged better Japan-China relations and supported Japan's increased Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to China.

You say that "the Nixon administration during this period was consumed with the Watergate scandal and had little ... time to be worried about what Japan was doing with China." You are mistaken. The Watergate incident occurred in June 1972, but it was not until Nixon began to assume his second term as president in January 1973 that he was put in turmoil of the Watergate scandal.

I would refer you to Woodward and Bernstein's "All the President's Men", which documents the Watergate scandal began before the election of 1972, and was consuming Nixon's presidency even before he entered office.....

I suppose you are an expert on post-war Japanese political history. So I feel like teaching an expert something he already knows. It was in this sense that I used the proverb

I am no expert of post-war Japanese history - "experts" tend believe they are always right - I take the view that I can learn and broaden my understanding by sharing views with anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a well-known Japanologist commenting that Hatoyama's downfall was masterminded by Washington. He asks, "[H]ow should the confrontation centered on the Okinawan base issue that occurred between the United States and Japan in 2009–2010, in which abuse and intimidation led to the fall of a government, be understood?" ("Ryukyu/Okinawa, From Disposal to Resistance" by Gavan McCormack and Satoko Norimatsu The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 38, No. 1, September 17, 2012.)

The fall of a government as the result of abuse and intimidation by the U.S. government, of course, refers to fall of the Hatoyama government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me put this issue to rest - with a quote from Hatoyama himself when asked by the Asahi Shimbum on Jun, 6th, 2010, why he stepped down;

Question: You resigned quite suddenly. What caused you to quit?

Answer: From the time I left the Liberal Democratic Party in 1993, I have stressed the need to be clean in terms of money in politics. That was my starting point. That is why, even after my Cabinet won high support ratings, the issues of my aide submitting false political fund reports and my mother giving me funds weighed heavily in my heart. I felt a certain sense of guilt. Even after the decision was made not to indict me, the public found it hard to believe that I was not aware that my mother was providing me with 15 million yen ($165,000) a month. They probably thought, "Can we leave national politics up to someone who lives in a totally different dimension from us?" No matter how many policies we presented that we thought were right, the public was in no mood to hear what we had to say, so I felt that sooner or later, I would have to resign. While the timing of my resignation coincided with the resolution of the Futenma issue, that was not the main reason. I decided on my own fate based on the issue of money in politics.

So, no more outlandish anti-US conspiracy theories please........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman,

I believe Hatoyama is telling the truth. But, one can ask, is he telling the whole truth? As you suggest, politicians must be absolutely clean as far as money is concerned.

I wonder who dug up Hatoyama's mother-son money transfer first of all. He'd had a stack of reasons for resigning. But, certainly, this must have been the last straw.

No doubt, money-brokering politics must be done away with completely. But if a foreign coterie tried to expose a local politician's misconduct with its network of intelligence for their own private gains, that would be a different story.

You call my arguments "outlandish anti-U.S. conspiracy theories." That's just a name-calling. My argument may offend you and the people of your ilk, a selfish, anti-democratic, jingoistic people, but, thank goodness, there're a lot of reasonable-minded Americans in the U.S.. So don't fancy yourself a true, patriotic American!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe Hatoyama is telling the truth. But, one can ask, is he telling the whole truth? As you suggest, politicians must be absolutely clean as far as money is concerned. I wonder who dug up Hatoyama's mother-son money transfer first of all. He'd had a stack of reasons for resigning. But, certainly, this must have been the last straw. No doubt, money-brokering politics must be done away with completely. But if a foreign coterie tried to expose a local politician's misconduct with its network of intelligence for their own private gains, that would be a different story. You call my arguments "outlandish anti-U.S. conspiracy theories." That's just a name-calling. My argument may offend you and the people of your ilk, a selfish, anti-democratic, jingoistic people, but, thank goodness, there're a lot of reasonable-minded Americans in the U.S.. So don't fancy yourself a true, patriotic American!

I see once again, when proven wrong, you result to immature name-calling - but thank you for the over the top insults - I find them most entertaining....easily my best laugh of the day.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You aren't arguing with me face to face. You are merely criticizing me behind my backs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You aren't arguing with me face to face. You are merely criticizing me behind my backs.

I already clearly proved you were wrong in your absurd conspiracy assertions - as all can plainly see - so no further need to argue....

I was unaware you had more than one back - how many do you have by the way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You aren't arguing with me face to face. You are merely criticizing me behind my backs.

I clearly and unequivocallly proved your assertions wrong - for all to see in the above posts.

My argument may offend you and the people of your ilk,

I'm not offended by your arguments, I just merely proved them wrong.

....... a selfish, anti-democratic, jingoistic people, but, thank goodness, there're a lot of reasonable-minded Americans in the U.S.

By proving you wrong, I am anti-democratic, jingoistic and unreasonable? Only in Elite World........

So don't fancy yourself a true, patriotic American!

I won't, but I will fancy you for what you are; a loyal, upstanding member of the Chinese Communist party......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On another thread you called me "a visceral anti-American." On this thread, you called my arguments "conspiracy theory lunacy," "conspiracy assertions" and "outlandish anti-US conspiracy theories." Now, you've begun to call me "a royal, upstanding member of the Chinese Communist party." You really make me laugh, uh, LOL, to use an Internet jargon. Could you say, only with this slanderous name-calling, that you proved my assertions were "clearly and unequivocally" wrong?

You haven't commented on my post dated Sep. 19, 2012 - 11:31AM JST, which I repeat below:

I believe Hatoyama is telling the truth. But, one can ask, is he telling the whole truth? As you suggest, politicians must be absolutely clean as far as money is concerned.

I wonder who dug up Hatoyama's mother-son money transfer first of all. He'd had a stack of reasons for resigning. But, certainly, this must have been the last straw.

No doubt, money-brokering politics must be done away with completely. But if a foreign coterie tried to expose a local politician's misconduct with its network of intelligence for their own private gains, that would be a different story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On another thread you called me "a visceral anti-American." On this thread, you called my arguments "conspiracy theory lunacy," "conspiracy assertions" and "outlandish anti-US conspiracy theories." Now, you've begun to call me "a royal, upstanding member of the Chinese Communist party." You really make me laugh, uh, LOL, to use an Internet jargon. Could you say, only with this slanderous name-calling, that you proved my assertions were "clearly and unequivocally" wrong?

No, as everyone can see above, I proved you wrong with Hatoyama's own words. And I believe I called you "loyal" not "royal", though maybe you were correcting me regarding your correct affiliation.

You haven't commented on my post dated Sep. 19, 2012 - 11:31AM JST, which I repeat below: I believe Hatoyama is telling the truth. But, one can ask, is he telling the whole truth? As you suggest, politicians must be absolutely clean as far as money is concerned. I wonder who dug up Hatoyama's mother-son money transfer first of all. He'd had a stack of reasons for resigning. But, certainly, this must have been the last straw. No doubt, money-brokering politics must be done away with completely. But if a foreign coterie tried to expose a local politician's misconduct with its network of intelligence for their own private gains, that would be a different story.

You would like me to comment on it? OK, it's absolutely absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman,

Is that all you can say about my comment on your post of Sep. 18, 2012 - 07:13PM JST: "absolutely absurd"? Why is it absurd? The U.S. government has a criminal record of conspiracy for unfavorable foreign governments to collapse, doesn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is that all you can say about my comment on your post of Sep. 18, 2012 - 07:13PM JST: "absolutely absurd"?

Well, I could say a lot more, but absurd captures it quite accurately and succinctly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please stop bickering.

If you could say a lot more, why don't you do so "accurately and succinctly"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I already have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You said you could say a lot more (than just say "absolutely absurd").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No need, I already have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lincolnman.

I asked you to respond to my comment on your post of Sep. 18, 2012 - 07:13PM JT. But you are stubborn enough not to answer it, repeating only "absurd". OK. I'll leave a fair play judgement to a third party.

Of course, by now, readers of this thread may have dwindled to only a few people: you and me, the moderator, the original author of the article and a few others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's time you wound up this discussion since both of you are just going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moderator - thank you - I wholeheartedly concur.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites