nethids = methods
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Whoever wrote the title to this article seeems to have difficulty with numbers.
Was the sample set 26,000 random subjects in the EU or were other countries inckuded? I wish the article gave a few nire details an the nethids. Was China included? The US?
0 ( +3 / -3 )
The stupidity of Hashimoto's pathetic comment about sex slaves is one thing but what I find amusing is the US reaction to his remark about US Forces in Okinawa patroizing the local "sex services" more. The US Forces already partake of both the legal and, heaven forbid, the illegal "services" on a regular basis already! For a US congressman to express "outrage" at the suggestion of US military in Okinawa patronizing prostitutes is crazy! At the beginning of the occupation they even set up brothels in Yokohama for the occupation forces! Big difference between that and forced sex slavery and Hasimoto was even more stupid for putting the two together in almost the same breath. If he hadn't mentioned the sex slavery at all I'm pretty sure the same congressman would have been outraged at tge suggestion the the US military even consider "paying" for sex, the legal Japanese kind or the illegal "go all the way" variety!
2 ( +3 / -1 )
@Peter Payne No. Japan's apologies lose their meaning whenever their PMs try to revise their apologies.
Since China and Korea never accept an apology as "sincere", when it helps meet their political goals, each successive Japanese PM is forced to revise and reissue an apology with the hope that China/SK will stop playing games, grow up, and let things go. Let's move on!
-1 ( +6 / -7 )
Man up, apologize some more. For each new comfort woman coerced, apologize in person. Show Japan is really civilize by apologizing in public again, Version 2 sounds better!
Actually Japan is way past version 2! China needs to let it go and everyone can get on with the future.
A quick search will find over 50 made by Japan since the 50s. How many will are there from China to the countries that they have attacked, invaded, or otherwise coerced over the years?
0 ( +6 / -6 )
Two points I like to bring to your attention.
1.0 Please do not drag in Singapore and lump it with Japan. Singapore has good relation with China.
You do know how Singapore treats this "good relation with China"? The Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs lists China as one of the countries their passport holders are not expected to visit unless permission has been given by the Singapore government.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
@oedo I wasn't aware of that, will do a little research on the for my amusement only ;-)
Try Googling "50 Cent Party" as an easy start...
6 ( +6 / -0 )
can you explain why these Disputes suddenly become Expansionists?
hummm... when China illegally enters the administrative areas of the others, when they attack a Vietnamese fishing boat and kill the fishermen, when they set up a military camp within the "disputed" territories, etc, etc...
All sounds expansionist to me! A recent article in the Australian titled "China's expansionism echoes history" says it all very well so I don't have to repeat here. You might also find a Russian article titled something like "China's territorial disputes with nearly 20 countries", you can google it yourself, enlightening as well.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
@CrazedinjapanMay. 08, 2013 - 11:27AM JST @Tony how much are you being paid to spew pro china propaganda ???
Crazed wasn't upset. He just asked how much you got paid to spew China's propaganda.
The going rate seems to be about 50 Chinese cents per post that's approved as "proper propaganda". It's all rather well documented throughout the internet.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
Let me get this straight Tony, What your saying is really; The external show of tensions is just theater to keep us on the edge of our seats AND to distract the Chinese domestic population from their problems at home, to keep the CCP in power, and to distract to rest of the world as China trys to expand into neighboring territories and take th em over, all without a war.
When a government, in this case China, plays that game it worries everyone around them. Today most of her neighbors are trying to improve the military capabilities and inviting the US into the region as well!
China needs to backdown from the expansionist attitude and let things that a safer, more peaceful course ahead!
10 ( +10 / -0 )
China says U.S. should be concerned about Japanese nationalism
AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SAYS
The world says EVERYONE should be concernerd about Chinese nationalism
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Aso did not explain why China and Japan did not have good relations for a long time.
Perhaps the article didn't explain this is because it's not the topic of the article! It didn't explain why China has poor relations and or conflicts with Vietnam, India, Singapore, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc, etc, either.
The US allies in the Pacific basin, especially the smaller countries near the East China Sea, certainly welcome this move into the Pacific. If China were just updating her military without ongoing conflicts with so many of her neighbors the world wouldn't feel the pressing need to balance the threat. Unfortunately China, and her vassal NK, keep threatening and pushing with a clear goal of solving her territorial conflicts with so many neighbors using "military diplomacy".
15 ( +15 / -0 )
From me being an outsider, is the Ocean name contain the word China, Mean anything to Anybody.
Hummmmm...... It could mean that it's south of mainland China?
Actuallt the English name results from early European interest in the sea as a route from Europe and South Asia to the trading opportunities of China. Early Portuguese sailors called it the China Sea because that is where the wanted to eventually get to, not because of any implied ownership of the territories. In other languages the sea and territories are call by a variety of different names, by the way.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
I don't think they are purposfully intruding as they see these waters belonging to them.
Its all a matter of perception.
That's true... but it's the perception of the international courts that should count, not that of a selfish and expansionistic government! Like JBird said, if Japan sent ships around Takeshima/Dokudo Japan would be in the wrong. In the case of the Senkakus China can use all the double-talk they want but intrusions are antagonistic, wrong, and there is no way anyone can dispute that fact unless it's tongue-in-cheek or to just a farce to earn 50 cents!
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Wow, the Asian countries coming together to bully against China. Since China has been and remains the bully I think the correct English word in this case would be "defense", as in:
Wow, the Asian countries coming together to defend themselves against China
Seems China is contributing something positive to the region after all, but it would be even better if they had heloed create this postive effect by using positive actions instead!
5 ( +8 / -3 )
I don't think "resolved" is the right word to describe this situation.
It's true China withdrew her troops but that just seems to be analogous to the Chinese ships that are illegally in Japanese waters leaving for a short time. Hardly a resolution, just China'a way of pushing the envelope and then backing down right before all hell breaks loose to antagonize it's "enemies".
China needs to stop this!
11 ( +17 / -6 )
See China for what she is, a group of technocrats running the country
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but haven't six of the seven members of the new Politburo Standing Committee studied humanities and are not, by definition, technocrats? True a break from the last group but, in any case, you'll have to memorize a new story now! If they can no longer be classified as "technocratic" maybe "nationalistic" works for you now?
5 ( +6 / -1 )
I doubt that the representitives of the US Forces Japan that visited Yasukuni were there to "prey for Tojo and the 14 class A", and a don't believe you can speak for the thoughts of others either. Nice deflection though, but my comment was about the world's concern in regard to nationalists with total control in a communist state vs politicians in a democratic state. Which is more believeable, state controlled media with severe censorship or open discussion in the international arena. Even with attempts by China to stimulate talk of "rising nationalism" in Japan in an attempt to cover their own nationistic and expantionistic desires I think most of the sane world is clear on which is of the greater concern!
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Abe's attempt to change the Constitution is nicely tied to Japan's rise in nationalism. This is Abe's scheme to create tensions with China to make LDP more popular so more Japanese vote for him to help him change the Constitution.
At least Japan allows its people to vote. This is one reason that the world is much more concerned about the raging Chinese nationalism than it is about the "rise of Japanese nationalism". In Japan a few nationalistic politicians are offset by the a democratic populous whereas the nationalistic rulers of China simply censor the public, tell them what they should think and hide the rest, and then do as they please to protect their positions. Very scary! I would still like to see a list of the countries that agree with China that the "the US should be just concerned as other countries" about Japan's nationalism, with no list and implying that they needn't worry about China?. NK doesn't count!
7 ( +8 / -1 )
I wrote " 'intrusion' ", not "intrusion". See the difference? If you can't I cannot help you.
It doesn't seem I'm the one needing help with reading/writing here, Tony.
However, it doesn't matter how China "justifies" their intrusions, or even how the party being "intruded upon" sees it for that matter, the world sees it as illegal.
If you broke into a bank to reclaim the your money that had been entrusted to that bank you would still find your butt in prison, no? That's because such things are ILLEGAL!
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Please don't murder the English language. Call that 'intrusion' if you want, but 'invading'?
So what your saying here Tony is that you agree that the Chinese are "intruding" into Japanese administered territory?
Perhaps we've found another point we can agree on. Oh, by the way, I should mention "intrusion", as you call it in your correction of Tamarama's English, is ILLEGAL. Can we agree on that too?
3 ( +5 / -2 )
sorry is = if
JT needs an edit button!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I'm pretty sure the censors don't have good English command there.
Finally something we might agree on, especially after reading your comments here for a few months! The words look familiar but the logic is usually incomprehensable!
Is "nationalist" always translated as "angry person" is their nationality is Chinese?
6 ( +8 / -2 )
@sfjp Actually Deng Xiaoping and Takeo Fukuda issued a joint statement on the occasion of the Sino-Japan Peace Treaty in 1978 saying they wanted to maintain the status quo concerning the island issue. Neither side expressed their was or was not a dispute or their sides stance. For Japan the status quo was that Japan had both sovereign and administrative rights, for China it was wanting Japan to accept a dispute.
That is quite different than your twisted version of the issue, me thinks.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
If you're speed reading I suggest you slow down.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
@Tony A perfect example to substantiate my twisted, half-truth observation, Tony.
Remember the 9 dash line? Was this drawn up after the oil or before the oil discovery?
Tony, there have been various Chinese domestic versions around for a while BUT the Chinese actually first submitted a map with the lines to the UN in 2009. It was immediately protested by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. Why not Japan? Because it covers the South China Sea area and has nothing to do with the Senkakus, the oil there, or Zhou Enlai's admission. But I'm sure you know that...
4 ( +4 / -0 )
@Tony You justify China's illegal incursions and obvious expansionist goals by twisting facts and with half- truths while ignoring points that detract from your appointed, or hired, task. In regard to China's RECENT interest in the Senkakus you seemed to overlook things like what Premier Zhou Enlai (remember him) said in 1972. I'll quote for you, "It became an issue because of the oil out there." by the way, "it" referres to the Senkakus. Fast forward to today and China's military plans making illegal incurrisons into territory of another country. There are other expansionist reasons as well, but one point that you failed to respond to is that your Premier even admitted China's interest was recent and because they wanted something that someone else owned. Did the world miss something here?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
@Tony Actually the problem is very solvable since only China thinks "the disputed islands were stolen under duress" and the rest of the world either doesn't agree or doesn't care! China needs to stop its provocative, expansionist behaviour!
I do agree with you that if the PRC were democratic the situation probably wouldn't exist, BUT not because the islands would have went to China but because China would never be making such ridiculous claims.
The problem exists now because of China's nationalist pride resulting from nationalist propaganda supplemented with the Chinese are relaying on the old "tell a lie a 1000 times and some will begin believe it" strategy.
When push comes to shove though, the Japan-U.S. security treaty includes the Senkakus and the U.S. WILL respond if the Senkakus are invaded. This has been stated many times and should be clear. The CIA report that was released in 2007, shows the real U.S. position and states that "the Senkakus are commonly considered as part of the large Ryukyu Island chain”, and that “the Japanese claim to sovereignty over the Senkakus is strong, and the burden of proof of ownership would seem to fall on the Chinese.” Something they cannot do, I think...
5 ( +5 / -0 )
@Tony What you need to do here, Tony, is to take a bit wider view of the actual facts. For example U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and even President Nixon officially stated that Japan had sovereign right to the Senkaku Islands. At that point in time the Nixon Administration wanted to improve relations with China and they decided to be diplomatic by saying they didn't take a stance on the ultimate sovereignty to satisfy China, while return administration of the islands to Japan and protecting that status from any change in by inclusion in the Japan-US security treaty and specifically using the phrase "territories administered by Japan".
Probably with a short closed-door discussion following to the effect that since Japan's sovereignty claim is so strong (as stated in a FBI report) and that under international law Japan's sovereignty is also clear the U.S. saying that they were neutral would be the same as specifically stating that the islands were Japanese territory. If everything wasn't tied to the world economy and politics it would be easy for the U.S. government to just go back to the stance Eisenhower voiced in 1957 and Japan should re-open the bonito processing business. Problem solved.
5 ( +5 / -0 )