China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[madd0ct0r]

other exceptions would be eco-system damage, genetic damage and diseases left from experiments ( Unit 731 in Manchuria as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 )

All of the above would also be continued injustices that continue to harm the current generation.

Are you serious that Unit 731 introduced new diseases into the general population? That seems implausible.



I think the main thing of the present generation being hurt is its pride. China beat up all its neighbours, even refusing to acknowledge other sovereigns existed, merely tributary rulers under Chinese suzerainty. Then Japan modernised its society and beat up Korea and China. Now China is at last modernising, and with a larger population seems it can make a go of it again.

It's like 2012 Germany demanding Alsace-Lorraine or something. Utterly absurd.

So spreading a disease as a biological weapon dosen't count if that disease might possible be present in nearby areas? That's as stupid as saying spraying a school with bullets dosen't count because bullets are also present in nearby Walmarts.

There's still people alive with 'rotting leg disease'. There was an excellent recent documentary following the efforts of Wang Xuan to lead a class action lawsuit against the Japanese goverment, but I can't find a version of it online.

[Iron Bridge]

other exceptions would be eco-system damage, genetic damage and diseases left from experiments ( Unit 731 in Manchuria as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 )

All of the above would also be continued injustices that continue to harm the current generation.

Are you serious that Unit 731 introduced new diseases into the general population? That seems implausible.



I think the main thing of the present generation being hurt is its pride. China beat up all its neighbours, even refusing to acknowledge other sovereigns existed, merely tributary rulers under Chinese suzerainty. Then Japan modernised its society and beat up Korea and China. Now China is at last modernising, and with a larger population seems it can make a go of it again.

It's like 2012 Germany demanding Alsace-Lorraine or something. Utterly absurd.

So spreading a disease as a biological weapon dosen't count if that disease might possible be present in nearby areas? That's as stupid as saying spraying a school with bullets dosen't count because bullets are also present in nearby Walmarts.

Spreading an already endemic disease could have temporary local consequences (which is still of course bad), but not effects that would persist for 70+ years. To have enduring effects they would need to create a new disease reservoir.

There's still people alive with 'rotting leg disease'. There was an excellent recent documentary following the efforts of Wang Xuan to lead a class action lawsuit against the Japanese goverment, but I can't find a version of it online.

http://www.sunshine-project.org/pingfan/pf10.html this is all I can find for it

I'll take it at face value, but even so, it seems to be saying that people still have injuries incurred at the time, not that this disease is still present. Did the documentary give a different impression?

[madd0ct0r]

No, you're right. The documentary emphaised the cost (in amputations, medicine and lost earnings) are still ongoing, but there don't seem to be new cases of it developing. I know the CDC has been trying to eradicate bubonic plague from the area.

Endemic diseases are, by definition, REGULARLY found in the population. I simply don't know wether bubonic plague et al were endemic in those areas of China before the Japanese invasion, but I contend you can't prove it either. I'd argue that the size of the outbreaks from the germ warfare attacks shows not that many of the population were resistant.

[stormthebeaches]

No, you just kept on repeating that line even after I specified I was only talking about one facet. And you know what? You still don't get it. I already said I was only talking about comparing individuals to governments in regards to bringing up the past, not rhetoric in general.

But you cannot compare individuals and national governments when it comes to bringing up the past. The two cannot be compared and they should not be held to the same standard at all.

Thats because I already won idiot.

You failed to prove any sort of contradiction so you resorted to petty insults. That's not winning.

Bullshit. The question I asked was quite simple, why can't China dredge up the past. You stated people die when international diplomacy goes sour. The implications are a) bringing up the past will go lead to international diplomacy going sour b) this will in turn lead to death and c) it must be likely, or else its pointless bringing this up.

You just attempt to pretend you were answering another question.

Go back and reread the link you posted. Here is the quote I responded to and what I said:

I am saying it strangely is ok for OTHERS (including yourself) to dredge up the past, but its somehow not ok for China to do so.

You see, when internet debates go sour, a tiny number of people getting annoyed. When international diplomacy between neighbouring countries goes sour, people die, often in large numbers. Another words, private individuals have less responsibility than national governments and can act accordingly and no distortion tactics (like asking why he bothered to make his opposing viewpoint clear with Stas on a forum designed to discussing politics) will change that. Really, I am aghast at the fact that I had to explain this to someone.

As you can see I was quite clearly explaining why national government and individuals should not be held to the same standard. Furthermore, I never stated that aggressive rhetoric and heightened tensions automatically leads to war. So you are wrong on both counts.

Idiot. With this criteria China could be criticised numerous times, but it won't count as a record, because you can set about whatever criteria you want for record. I backed up my claims, you just pretend I need many more because it doesn't constitute a record, even though you say "I never said that a case does not constitute part of a record."

Now you are trying to change the meaning of the word record. A human rights record would be a series case in a nation compiled over a period of time to quantify how good that nation has historically upheld human rights. There is a huge difference between focusing on a record and focusing on one specific case you idiot. Furthermore, at the time of the article, that case was very recent. Its not like Gordon Brown went digging through Chinese history to find a case he could use to bash China. It was an immediate response to something that had just happened (the execution of the British drug dealer happened in 2009). Not only that, but Gordon Brown went out of his way to clarify that he was focusing on this specific case and not China's record. If Gordon Brown said something like "once again China tramples all over human rights" you would have a point. But he didn't, instead he when out of his way to clarify that he was referring to one specific case (that had, at the time of his statements, just happened).

See what I mean about failing to read. You ask me to back up examples I never claimed. Your very reply quoted me saying "examples of things I never claimed". Are you too stupid to realise I don't need to back up anything I never claimed. You then go on to say it was YOU who asked to provide examples of things I never claimed. I gave you an example of what I claimed, countries even today bringing up the past in regards to China. The very fact that even one example exists, already disproves one of your other thesis countries should keep quiet about what other countries do unless its genocide, because countries don't behave in that manner, and it would be disadvantageous for China to be the only country to do so for fear of raising tensions.

You said that the "west" attacks China because of its past. I asked which Western leaders (people of importance) are bashing China. You have not done so. If you feel that you do not need to do so for the sake of the debate why didn't you say so when I first asked? And no, the article you linked was not a case of Western leaders bashing China's past for reasons that I just explained.

Actually I also caught you holding numerous self contradictory positions, going on red herrings (I am still waiting for you to explain why it makes a difference if there is a sufficient break in continuity), outright lying. But who is counting. Certainly not you dumbass.

I suspect its not so much you don't understand what a slippery slope is, you once again failed to read properly what I said, and thought it was a slippery slope.

You have not caught me lying or taking contradictory positions. Rather you are accusing me of saying things that I did not say or taking my posts out of context so you can accuse me of contradicting myself. As for the "break in continuity" argument that was merely to explain that there was a difference between Britain and Japan. That was all. It was you took things off track with accusations that I was arguing that Japan shouldn't have to pay at all.

BTW - Speaking of failing to read properly, I am still waiting for your response where I demonstrated you failed to read my post when I said denialism is a phenomena which didn't occur generations ago, followed by you doing a bait and switch and saying Japanese war crimes did happen generations ago. This should be good, but I expect you to chicken out again.

Semantic whorring again? We both know fully well that I was referring to Japan's war crimes, not denialism.

Wasn't it clear from my previous response. How about this one then. You statement is self contradictory because you state on one hand that abolishing the military cannot match reality then give examples of it does, and then say not dredging up the past can match reality even though you acknowledge examples of countries that do (hint its when you use the line "I don't agree with what <insert country here> does either.

Now I know that you are being dishonest. I clearly said that Costa Rica was an exception to the norm and not representative of the average country.

Sure did buddy. Now care to address how you failed to read my statement that denialism did not happen generations ago and how you did a bait and switch with saying Japanese war crimes did happen generations ago, or how about you address why its important that there is a significant break in continuity between the present and past governments of a country.

Care to address it again then?

And again, you and I both know that I was referring to Japanese war crimes so stop your pitiful semantic whorring about denialism.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

US : China you are bad. You did these bad things in the past <insert examples here>. We using this past to gain a geopolitical advantage.

China : Must follow stormthebeaches advice. Must rise above it all.

US : I am going to keep on doing this.

China : what does stormthebeaches say to do next when the US doesn't stop. Oh thats right. Hey US. All of us has skeletons in the closet.

US : Ok. Such as?

China : You know what. We all have skeletons in the closet.

US : Such as.

China : Must not be specific. Because that will violate stormthebeaches rule of focussing on the specific wrong doings of a specific country.

US : Didn't you hear me, such as?

China : All of us have skeletons in the closet, don't you know this?

US : Hard to discuss this, when you won't even say what you mean by skeletons in the closet. Which past wrongs are you talking about?

China : must rise above. Cannot dig up the past on a specific country.

US : You swallowed that retard's argument didn't you?

Since your attempt prove that I am contradicting myself has failed (again) you have now moved on to strawman territory. Here is how such an event would occur:

USA: You Chinese have done <X> bad thigns in the past. You must be held accountable to them.

China: Hey now, we all have skeletons in the closet. We've all done nasty things in more barbaric times. But lets not allow this to disrupt a prosperous relationship we have in the present.

If the USA (or any other country that is opposing China in such a manner) continues to bring up the past for geopolitical gain it will make them look bad and China look good. This is because China will come across as rational, pragmatic and willing to do business, whilst the USA (or any other country that is opposing China in such a manner) will come across as an irrational antagonists.

Your awesome strategy is so amazingly effective that it does not put a country at any disadvantage whatsoever when they choose to follow you advice. In other news, stormthebeaches just tried switched from a self contradictory position (by skirting the line between what constitutes digging up the past even though he points to historical events, but its ok as long as its very broad instead of specific), back to the original problem, that countries which follow his advice to "rise above it" are at a disadvantage.

I never proposed that China would point to historical events, rather that it should point to broad historical trends.

Guess what. How did they get there in the first place without the past already occurring.

There is a difference between focusing on current ownership and focusing on how current ownership was required.

Except of course I was referring to events which are occurring now, and I know you would still object to them, so under your own criteria it wouldn't have made a goddamn difference whether they occurred now or in the past. This is despite your claim of differences between them (there are differences between almost anything, but the point is, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of objecting to them) You keep on wanting to talk about the event occurring in the past, rather than the fact "it doesn't make a difference to your criteria whether they occurred in the past or not".

How is any of this justify your semantic whorring by trying to make it look like I was being dishonest by saying that Japan's denialism wasn't a current issue. Also, it DOES make a difference in my criteria whether the event occurs in the past or is occurring in the present.

Its just like you keep on harping about a sufficient break in continuity between past and present governments, when it doesn't make a fucking difference whether a present government has to pay a past debt or not.

If we are both in agreement on this particular issue then why do you keep bringing it up?

This was already addressed.

Then why did you bring it up? You should know my feeling on this issue. I have stated them multiple times in multiple posts through out this thread.

Looks like backtracking there.

No backtracking at all. My position has been consisted. I have always been referring to Japan's WW2 crimes. Why would I be referring to denialism, that is something that is happening right now.

Broken records are getting good these days.

Got to say enough times until it gets through to you.

I don't need to ask you to define what constitutes a sufficient break when I asked a more pertinent question. What difference does it make to paying debts from a previous government? None apparently. You were the one who raised this issue in regards to governments paying debts. When you were called on this, when you youself admit a government with sufficient break in continuity should still pay debts from a previous government eg Japan. You just tried to save face by saying well we both agree the governments are different. Yeah, after you wasted time trying to defend this continuity argument, and now you chicken out when you lose.

I never lost the argument as I never argued that a country should be need to pay reparations for crimes committed by a past government (apart from in really extreme cases, like Mongolia paying reparations for the Golden Horde). I was merely stated that there was a difference between Britain and Japan. It was you who wasted both our times by dragging the argument out and engaging in several motive fallacies in the process. Now, what difference does a break in continuity mean? It means that one can argue that the past crimes happened under the leadership of a group of people that are no longer in power and thus the country as a whole is much less likely to commit such crimes in the future. Going even further it would be argued that the nation as a whole has changed so much since the crimes were committed that it is no longer recognizable and is not the same nation as the one that committed the crimes. I personally do not agree with this logic all the way, and I certainly feel that in the case of Japan they should pay compensations (as long as it is to the criteria previously established in this thread). However, I do recognize that this argument does have some merit and should be considered when it comes to the issue of reparations.

Ah, but under your criteria the moment they make more statements and gestures on the international stage, it would worsen an already existing dispute. So both sides go to an international mediator and keep quiet because the moment they say something the other doesn't agree with, it just makes things worse.

If two or more nations are having a dispute then the issue is already on the international stage. In which case the issue it would be best for at least one side to try to bring in a third party to act as a mediator (eg. the UN). This at least shows that they are willing to negotiate and good faith and come up with a fair solution, as oppose to just strong arming the opposition into giving in to their demands.

[mr friendly guy]

But you cannot compare individuals and national governments when it comes to bringing up the past. The two cannot be compared and they should not be held to the same standard at all.

As I said before, this is just an unsupported claim. I suppose if I said its not unreasonable to expect a government and an individual to be up front and honest, you would be pontificating that they shouldn't be held to the same standard.

You failed to prove any sort of contradiction so you resorted to petty insults. That's not winning.

Mate, you already conceded that Japan only has to pay billions. You already conceded Japan has to pay. You already stopped trying to debate the sufficient break in continuity argument after it was pointed out its irrelevant, and instead just say, see we both agree in a sufficient break (actually its hard for me to agree or disagree what constitutes a sufficient break when you haven't defined it fully). All you can do is point out that contradictions don't count to save face.

You just attempt to pretend you were answering another question.

Go back and reread the link you posted. <snip>

You see, when internet debates go sour, a tiny number of people getting annoyed. When international diplomacy between neighbouring countries goes sour, people die, often in large numbers. Another words, private individuals have less responsibility than national governments and can act accordingly and no distortion tactics (like asking why he bothered to make his opposing viewpoint clear with Stas on a forum designed to discussing politics) will change that. Really, I am aghast at the fact that I had to explain this to someone. <snip>

As you can see I was quite clearly explaining why national government and individuals should not be held to the same standard. Furthermore, I never stated that aggressive rhetoric and heightened tensions automatically leads to war. So you are wrong on both counts.

Oh noes, a statement can never ever have more than one property. No sirree. Your rationale for why they can't be held to same standard, is because it will lead to war if they do the same thing. Your nitpicking aside fails to change that. All you can do now, is pretend that its just increases the probability that it will lead to war. A claim is quite dubious for the reason governments have done more than rhetoric in recent times without it leading to people dying in large numbers.

Now you are trying to change the meaning of the word record. A human rights record would be a series case in a nation compiled over a period of time to quantify how good that nation has historically upheld human rights. There is a huge difference between focusing on a record and focusing on one specific case you idiot. Furthermore, at the time of the article, that case was very recent. Its not like Gordon Brown went digging through Chinese history to find a case he could use to bash China. It was an immediate response to something that had just happened (the execution of the British drug dealer happened in 2009). Not only that, but Gordon Brown went out of his way to clarify that he was focusing on this specific case and not China's record. If Gordon Brown said something like "once again China tramples all over human rights" you would have a point. But he didn't, instead he when out of his way to clarify that he was referring to one specific case (that had, at the time of his statements, just happened).

Actually it was you who used the human rights tangent when we were talking about digging up the past. I just pointed the claim isn't even true.

Going on, you changing the word record to have a more specific meaning, even as you say one example does constitute part of the record.

See what I mean about failing to read. You ask me to back up examples I never claimed. Your very reply quoted me saying "examples of things I never claimed". Are you too stupid to realise I don't need to back up anything I never claimed. You then go on to say it was YOU who asked to provide examples of things I never claimed. I gave you an example of what I claimed, countries even today bringing up the past in regards to China. The very fact that even one example exists, already disproves one of your other thesis countries should keep quiet about what other countries do unless its genocide, because countries don't behave in that manner, and it would be disadvantageous for China to be the only country to do so for fear of raising tensions.

You said that the "west" attacks China because of its past. I asked which Western leaders (people of importance) are bashing China. You have not done so. If you feel that you do not need to do so for the sake of the debate why didn't you say so when I first asked? And no, the article you linked was not a case of Western leaders bashing China's past for reasons that I just explained.

This says it all really. When the counterargument is in the very post he quotes.

You have not caught me lying or taking contradictory positions. Rather you are accusing me of saying things that I did not say or taking my posts out of context so you can accuse me of contradicting myself. As for the "break in continuity" argument that was merely to explain that there was a difference between Britain and Japan. That was all. It was you took things off track with accusations that I was arguing that Japan shouldn't have to pay at all.

Ok genius. Britain and Japan are different. OMG, no two countries are exactly the same. Do you want your Nobel prize now. So what? Did anyone claim they were exactly the same? You tried to spin this break in continuity argument as a reason Japan shouldn't pay, but when you conceded the second argument, you tried to save face on this one. You kept on harping about how they were different and ignoring me everytime I said its not so much they are different, that argument is invalid.

Semantic whorring again? We both know fully well that I was referring to Japan's war crimes, not denialism.

Hey I wish I can misread someone's statement, and then say I was referring to something else. Well of course you were referring to something else moron, because you misread the statement and started talking about something else. The whole point of the denialism, was to point out that under your own criteria it wouldn't make a difference if the dispute is over a recent phenomena or one that happened 3 generations ago. Ergo its stupid trying to defend Jester by saying there is a difference to not make him a hypocrite, when under your own criteria it wouldn't matter, because both disputes will raise tensions and its bad.

But instead of arguing "it makes no difference under your criteria whether the dispute is 3 generations ago or recent", you chose to argue "Japan WWII crimes did occur three generations ago so I win." Hey I guess when you can't win the argument, change topic. When you are corrected on this, just accuse the opponent of knowing you were discussing this.

BTW - I know you were referring to WWII crimes. Thats why I said "Denialism isn't three generations ago, so even under your own criteria, you fail."

Now I know that you are being dishonest. I clearly said that Costa Rica was an exception to the norm and not representative of the average country.

No shit you said it. What you don't get is, it makes no difference. Moreover your statement about how its matches reality if everyone didn't raise tensions over the past doesn't work either. Because you yourself acknowledge other nations do act in that manner. Proclaiming you disagree with them won't change the fact they still do it, hence it doesn't match reality.

Care to address it again then?

And again, you and I both know that I was referring to Japanese war crimes so stop your pitiful semantic whorring about denialism.

You were referring to Japanese war crimes in a rebutal of my point, which was NOT about Japanese war crimes. Yep, its semantic whoring all right. On your part. Just for you again, I chose a recent phenomena to illustrate that it wouldn't matter to you whether a dispute is recent or several generations ago. I could have chosen a territorial dispute as well, but since you already agreed denialism is bad, I figured it wouldn't raise too many issues there. Never did I imagine you failed to read a simple word.. I wrote denialism, you replied with a bait and switch and changed it to Japanese War crimes. Its funny, you somehow missed the denialism part, but you read the rest of the statement about denialism not being three generations ago. Because you then argue Japanese war crimes did occur three generations ago.

BTW since we both knew you were talking about Japanese war crimes, I guess you were drunk when you said this then.

When I said that Japan's denialism over its WW2 crimes wasn't a current issue, I meant that the WW2 crimes weren't a current issue.

Since your attempt prove that I am contradicting myself has failed (again) you have now moved on to strawman territory.

I know this is a hard concept for you, but words actually actually have specific meaning, not whatever you want them to mean. Like slippery slope argument, actually has a specific meaning. You remember that mistake don't you? By most stretches of the imagination, what constitutes digging up the past would mean your position is self contradictory. What you try to nitpick, is the SCALE a country is allowed to dig up the past of another. However if you recall (come on you can do it, just dig up those last reserves of grey matter), this argument came about when I pointed out China is at a disadvantage if it follows you advice, but other countries do not. Your defense was that it will not, because you have other steps to follow in this event.

Even if we accept that your advice about not digging up the past isn't self contradictory because you were really talking about the scale of which a country is allowed to do it, rather than not doing it at all, you would still run into the first problem. It would still put any country following your advice at a disadvantage. Its quite simple to stymie because the diplomatically aggressive country (in this scenario the US) can simply call out China and ask them which skeletons are these? In which case it would be China looking unreasonable, because they are accusing the US of doing bad things but refusing to name them.

Here is how such an event would occur:

USA: You Chinese have done <X> bad thigns in the past. You must be held accountable to them.

China: Hey now, we all have skeletons in the closet. We've all done nasty things in more barbaric times. But lets not allow this to disrupt a prosperous relationship we have in the present.

If the USA (or any other country that is opposing China in such a manner) continues to bring up the past for geopolitical gain it will make them look bad and China look good. This is because China will come across as rational, pragmatic and willing to do business, whilst the USA (or any other country that is opposing China in such a manner) will come across as an irrational antagonists.

I love how in your scenario, the US just folds when China just says a few words. Are you seriously thinking the US won't argue back, even failing to ask the obvious question, which of our skeletons are you referring to?

In regards to your second part. Ok so to some the US will look like an irrational protagonists. So what? No seriously, under your criteria other countries should only be raising tensions in the most dire of circumstances such as genocide (as per your words), so they would be keeping quiet, even if they think the US is being a total douchebag. So how is this going to make a difference? Are you even thinking before you type.

I never proposed that China would point to historical events, rather that it should point to broad historical trends.

You did both actually. Especially since the former is a subset of the latter.

There is a difference between focusing on current ownership and focusing on how current ownership was required.

So under this criteria, country x can take a piece of land from country y by force and get to keep it. Because we should be focussing on current ownership and not how current ownership was required. Did you even think about putting your theories through their logical paces. And no, this is not a strawman, its simply taking your theory through its logical steps, ie showing a claim without a past basis, can be manipulated easily enough.

How is any of this justify your semantic whorring by trying to make it look like I was being dishonest by saying that Japan's denialism wasn't a current issue. Also, it DOES make a difference in my criteria whether the event occurs in the past or is occurring in the present.

1. I accused you of doing a bait and switch, changing denialism to talk about Japanese war crimes. Thats a big difference between that and saying you believe denialism wasn't a current issue. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least learn to read what I wrote first.

2. Going on. Why do you object to Japan's denialism and China's response to that? Both are occurring in the present and not the past. Didn't you say countries shouldn't raise tensions unless something serious like genocide was going on? So you would still object to countries arguing about these even though they are about events in the present. Ergo it makes no difference whether they are discussing something now, or something in the present. You can wax poetry about how you see a difference, but actions speak louder than words, and you object to countries raising issues about present or past events. So in every way that counts, ie practical terms, it makes no difference. Game, set, match.

If we are both in agreement on this particular issue then why do you keep bringing it up?

Well since we are in agreement that a break in continuity is invalid... I just want to keep reminding you I said the argument was invalid numerous times and you kept on ignoring it before you now say there is an agreement. I guess thats a victory.

No backtracking at all. My position has been consisted. I have always been referring to Japan's WW2 crimes. Why would I be referring to denialism, that is something that is happening right now.

If there is no backtracking, why then would you have to say that when you said x, you really meant y. Even if its consistent in your mind, its clearly a problem in what you type or else you won't really have to say when I wrote something, it really meant something else. I know it hurts your brain to think this, but try to reason it out.

Got to say enough times until it gets through to you.

Considering you have conceded several things, like Japan will only need to pay billions, I would say its getting to through to you first.

I never lost the argument as I never argued that a country should be need to pay reparations for crimes committed by a past government (apart from in really extreme cases, like Mongolia paying reparations for the Golden Horde). I was merely stated that there was a difference between Britain and Japan. It was you who wasted both our times by dragging the argument out and engaging in several motive fallacies in the process. Now, what difference does a break in continuity mean? It means that one can argue that the past crimes happened under the leadership of a group of people that are no longer in power and thus the country as a whole is much less likely to commit such crimes in the future. Going even further it would be argued that the nation as a whole has changed so much since the crimes were committed that it is no longer recognizable and is not the same nation as the one that committed the crimes. I personally do not agree with this logic all the way, and I certainly feel that in the case of Japan they should pay compensations (as long as it is to the criteria previously established in this thread). However, I do recognize that this argument does have some merit and should be considered when it comes to the issue of reparations.

You know, if you want to say "I want my cake, and I want to eat it too," just say it instead of going through this shit which pretty much means the same thing.

You want to say that this argument has merit when it comes to the issue of reparations, yet when I accused you of using this argument to say Japan shouldn't pay, you pretend you never used it, as well as pretending you never denied saying they shouldn't pay.

So does Japan have a sufficient break in government or not? I accept yes or no answers.

If two or more nations are having a dispute then the issue is already on the international stage. In which case the issue it would be best for at least one side to try to bring in a third party to act as a mediator (eg. the UN). This at least shows that they are willing to negotiate and good faith and come up with a fair solution, as oppose to just strong arming the opposition into giving in to their demands.

I have no problems with the idea of a neutral mediator is both sides agree. I do have a problem with you saying this with a straight face after all that effort you went into in talking about doing things at an international stage like the UN makes it worse.

[Pelranius]

Hope you don't mind, madd0ct0r, but my curiosity is on overdrive this weekend.

other exceptions would be eco-system damage, genetic damage and diseases left from experiments ( Unit 731 in Manchuria as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 )

All of the above would also be continued injustices that continue to harm the current generation.

Are you serious that Unit 731 introduced new diseases into the general population? That seems implausible.



I think the main thing of the present generation being hurt is its pride. China beat up all its neighbours, even refusing to acknowledge other sovereigns existed, merely tributary rulers under Chinese suzerainty. Then Japan modernised its society and beat up Korea and China. Now China is at last modernising, and with a larger population seems it can make a go of it again.

It's like 2012 Germany demanding Alsace-Lorraine or something. Utterly absurd.

Where did you draw up that idiot analogy?!

China and Korea have very good reasons for doubting Japanese sincerity about the WWII war crimes. The Japanese are certainly a shit ton less apologetic than the Germans.

And how do hell is China bringing up the Diaoyutais and Japanese war crimes "make a go of it* again"? Seems perfectly reasonable to do, not "utter absurd"?

*I see your understanding of Chinese history is as underwhelming as Oliver North's claim to be a patriot.

[stormthebeaches]

As I said before, this is just an unsupported claim. I suppose if I said its not unreasonable to expect a government and an individual to be up front and honest, you would be pontificating that they shouldn't be held to the same standard.

I want to be completely clear on your position here. It is absurd to suggest that government's and individuals should be held to the same standard when it comes to any kind of rhetoric (including dredging up the past). Do you disagree with this statement?

Mate, you already conceded that Japan only has to pay billions. You already conceded Japan has to pay. You already stopped trying to debate the sufficient break in continuity argument after it was pointed out its irrelevant, and instead just say, see we both agree in a sufficient break (actually its hard for me to agree or disagree what constitutes a sufficient break when you haven't defined it fully). All you can do is point out that contradictions don't count to save face.

As I have already stated multiple times in this thread. I NEVER argued that Japan didn't have to pay at all. We have been over that several times and I demolished your attempts to "prove" that I said that Japan did not have to pay anything. This whole time I was merely arguing that a comparison between Britain and Japan was flawed. As for Japan only having to pay billions, I was skeptical because I was under the impression that such payments would be made nation to nation. Once it was clear that Japan only had to pay money to individuals I dropped the objection. Since my objection was based on a misunderstanding of your position, and I dropped it once I fully understood your position I fail to see how that counts as me "losing" or contradicting myself.

Oh noes, a statement can never ever have more than one property. No sirree. Your rationale for why they can't be held to same standard, is because it will lead to war if they do the same thing. Your nitpicking aside fails to change that. All you can do now, is pretend that its just increases the probability that it will lead to war. A claim is quite dubious for the reason governments have done more than rhetoric in recent times without it leading to people dying in large numbers.

The "rational" for why individuals and national governments cannot be held to the same standard is that national governments have more responsibilities. I said "when internet debates go sour, a tiny number of people get annoyed. When international diplomacy between neighbouring countries goes sour, people die in large numbers" to demonstrate that there is far more at stake when national governments engage in international diplomacy than when private individuals get into internet debates (which in turn was suppose to explain why individuals cannot be held to the same standard as national governments). I even said as much in the next sentence when I said, "in other words, private individuals have less responsibility than national governments and can act accordingly". You either didn't read what I said or you intentionally took the sentence out of context in yet another attempt to make it look like I was contradicting myself. There is nothing in this paragraph that even remotely implies that aggressive rhetoric and international diplomacy automatically leads to "international diplomacy between neighbouring countries going sour", please point out right now where than is implied.

Actually it was you who used the human rights tangent when we were talking about digging up the past. I just pointed the claim isn't even true.

Going on, you changing the word record to have a more specific meaning, even as you say one example does constitute part of the record.

Lets rehash exactly what was in that article. It was referring to the execution of the British citizen Akmal Shaikh for drug dealing and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemning China for doing so. Akmal Shaikh was executed in December 29 2009. That article you posted was was written in 30 December 2009. THE VERY NEXT DAY! Its not like Gordon Brown went digging through China's past to bring up a long forgotten case to bash a country. This was a direct reaction to something that had happened one day ago, and its not like Gordon Brown used it as an excuse to bash past cases either as he went out of his way to state that he was referring specifically to this case. You have the nerve to accuse me of changing the word record when you act like criticizing something that happened a day ago is identical to criticizing a nation's human rights record. A human rights record, by its very nature, requires an analysis of multiple cases , side by side, so you can establish a pattern and try to predict how that nation will act in the future.

This says it all really. When the counterargument is in the very post he quotes.

I brought that up to show that you have not answered my question. Either do so or admit that you cannot. Because so far, you made a failed attempt to do so and then said that you don't need to prove it to me when I called you out on it.

Ok genius. Britain and Japan are different. OMG, no two countries are exactly the same. Do you want your Nobel prize now. So what? Did anyone claim they were exactly the same? You tried to spin this break in continuity argument as a reason Japan shouldn't pay, but when you conceded the second argument, you tried to save face on this one. You kept on harping about how they were different and ignoring me everytime I said its not so much they are different, that argument is invalid.

I said that Britain and Japan were different because I felt that your comparison did not entirely fit. You could have simply posted a better example (like Germany) but instead you had to derail this thread by accusing me if arguing that Japan shouldn't have to pay (something I never did ). You then continued to waste both of our times by constantly accusing me of arguing that Japan shouldn't pay despite me saying multiple times throughout this thread that I was not arguing that Japan should pay. You even did it in your last post. How are you so hell bent on dragging this non-issue out?

No shit you said it. What you don't get is, it makes no difference. Moreover your statement about how its matches reality if everyone didn't raise tensions over the past doesn't work either. Because you yourself acknowledge other nations do act in that manner. Proclaiming you disagree with them won't change the fact they still do it, hence it doesn't match reality.

I meant that Costa Rica is one of the few nations where the reality is that it does not need a military. For the vast majority of nations (including China) the reality is that they DO need a military. This is only a contradict if you think that acknowledging that exceptions to the rules exist is itself a contradiction.

Hey I wish I can misread someone's statement, and then say I was referring to something else. Well of course you were referring to something else moron, because you misread the statement and started talking about something else. The whole point of the denialism, was to point out that under your own criteria it wouldn't make a difference if the dispute is over a recent phenomena or one that happened 3 generations ago. Ergo its stupid trying to defend Jester by saying there is a difference to not make him a hypocrite, when under your own criteria it wouldn't matter, because both disputes will raise tensions and its bad.

But instead of arguing "it makes no difference under your criteria whether the dispute is 3 generations ago or recent", you chose to argue "Japan WWII crimes did occur three generations ago so I win." Hey I guess when you can't win the argument, change topic. When you are corrected on this, just accuse the opponent of knowing you were discussing this.

BTW - I know you were referring to WWII crimes. Thats why I said "Denialism isn't three generations ago, so even under your own criteria, you fail."

The issue was always about Japan refusing to recognize a past event (its WW2 crimes). Not to mention, Japanese denialism, while a current event, is still a red herring because China wants more than just acknowledgement that such crimes happened from Japan.

You were referring to Japanese war crimes in a rebutal of my point, which was NOT about Japanese war crimes. Yep, its semantic whoring all right. On your part. Just for you again, I chose a recent phenomena to illustrate that it wouldn't matter to you whether a dispute is recent or several generations ago. I could have chosen a territorial dispute as well, but since you already agreed denialism is bad, I figured it wouldn't raise too many issues there. Never did I imagine you failed to read a simple word.. I wrote denialism, you replied with a bait and switch and changed it to Japanese War crimes. Its funny, you somehow missed the denialism part, but you read the rest of the statement about denialism not being three generations ago. Because you then argue Japanese war crimes did occur three generations ago.

BTW since we both knew you were talking about Japanese war crimes, I guess you were drunk when you said this then.

When I said that Japan's denialism over its WW2 crimes wasn't a current issue, I meant that the WW2 crimes weren't a current issue.

The topic was always on Japanese war crimes, when you said denialism wasn't three generations ago, I assumed you were accusing me of saying something I didn't say (again) to strawman me.

I know this is a hard concept for you, but words actually actually have specific meaning, not whatever you want them to mean. Like slippery slope argument, actually has a specific meaning. You remember that mistake don't you? By most stretches of the imagination, what constitutes digging up the past would mean your position is self contradictory. What you try to nitpick, is the SCALE a country is allowed to dig up the past of another. However if you recall (come on you can do it, just dig up those last reserves of grey matter), this argument came about when I pointed out China is at a disadvantage if it follows you advice, but other countries do not. Your defense was that it will not, because you have other steps to follow in this event.

Even if we accept that your advice about not digging up the past isn't self contradictory because you were really talking about the scale of which a country is allowed to do it, rather than not doing it at all, you would still run into the first problem. It would still put any country following your advice at a disadvantage. Its quite simple to stymie because the diplomatically aggressive country (in this scenario the US) can simply call out China and ask them which skeletons are these? In which case it would be China looking unreasonable, because they are accusing the US of doing bad things but refusing to name them.

The phrase "digging up the past" is a subjective one and we both have clearly have different definitions of what I means. I have already stated that I regard it as focusing on specific wrong doings in specific countries. Also, your argument in the previous post (the one I was referring to) was a strawman because it involved taking my argument (about China saying that "we all have skeletons in the closet" and distorting it by having China use it in the most pathetic manner possible.

I love how in your scenario, the US just folds when China just says a few words. Are you seriously thinking the US won't argue back, even failing to ask the obvious question, which of our skeletons are you referring to?

In regards to your second part. Ok so to some the US will look like an irrational protagonists. So what? No seriously, under your criteria other countries should only be raising tensions in the most dire of circumstances such as genocide (as per your words), so they would be keeping quiet, even if they think the US is being a total douchebag. So how is this going to make a difference? Are you even thinking before you type.

The USA would never said "which of our skeletons are you referring to" because it knows that that would open the flood gates for every group it wronged, from the Native Indians, to the Latin American nations to the Middle Eastern nations to cry "remember us". The USA knows that it making such a statement was "what skeletons" would leave it wide open and no American government would ever be stupid enough to do so. As for the second part of your argument, ignoring the fact that I am referring to how nations act in the real world, rather than by my idea, even if all nations did operate under my idea they could join China's side if they believe that taking a stand again the warmongering USA would force them to back down out of fear of getting into a fight that the USA knows it would lose.

You did both actually. Especially since the former is a subset of the latter.

So you are saying that it is impossible to reference a trend without referencing events as well? Sorry but that is just absurd.

So under this criteria, country x can take a piece of land from country y by force and get to keep it. Because we should be focussing on current ownership and not how current ownership was required. Did you even think about putting your theories through their logical paces. And no, this is not a strawman, its simply taking your theory through its logical steps, ie showing a claim without a past basis, can be manipulated easily enough.

I never said current ownership is the ideal why to settle territorial disputes. You asked for a way a country can justify a territorial claim, I gave you one. So I take it you have dropped your ridiculous claim that citing current ownership is bringing up the past.

1. I accused you of doing a bait and switch, changing denialism to talk about Japanese war crimes. Thats a big difference between that and saying you believe denialism wasn't a current issue. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least learn to read what I wrote first.

2. Going on. Why do you object to Japan's denialism and China's response to that? Both are occurring in the present and not the past. Didn't you say countries shouldn't raise tensions unless something serious like genocide was going on? So you would still object to countries arguing about these even though they are about events in the present. Ergo it makes no difference whether they are discussing something now, or something in the present. You can wax poetry about how you see a difference, but actions speak louder than words, and you object to countries raising issues about present or past events. So in every way that counts, ie practical terms, it makes no difference. Game, set, match.

1. You should not have brought up denialism was I was never referring to it. My point has always been that Japan is denying past events (its WW2 crimes) and China is opposing Japan for doing this in a heavy handed manner.

2. My position has always been that I recognize that there is a difference between raising tensions over past issues vs raising tensions over present issues. This has been consistent from the start (case to point, raising tensions over genocide that is currently happening vs genocide that happened in the past). Once again you have failed to prove a contradiction in my points.

Well since we are in agreement that a break in continuity is invalid... I just want to keep reminding you I said the argument was invalid numerous times and you kept on ignoring it before you now say there is an agreement. I guess thats a victory.

Except for the fact that you did not argue that a break in continuity makes no difference. You implied that there wasn't a break in continuity multiple times. If you had just said "yes, there is a clear break in continuity between Imperial Japan and Imperial Japan but it makes no difference, Japan should still pay" I would have agreed with you. Instead you derailed this topic by both accusing me of saying that Japan shouldn't pay and then implying that there wasn't not a clear break in continuity between Imperial Japan and modern Japan.

If there is no backtracking, why then would you have to say that when you said x, you really meant y. Even if its consistent in your mind, its clearly a problem in what you type or else you won't really have to say when I wrote something, it really meant something else. I know it hurts your brain to think this, but try to reason it out.

Because when you accused me of saying something that I did not said I briefly assumed that I must have accidentally said it some where in the thread and decided to clarify things.

Considering you have conceded several things, like Japan will only need to pay billions, I would say its getting to through to you first.

Again, my opposition to your claim that Japan needed to pay billions was based on my belief that I thought that you wanted Japan to pay the Chinese nation, rather than Chinese individuals. Once I understood what you were proposing I dropped this argument as I saw that we were both in favor of the same thing. I fail to see how this is a concession.

You know, if you want to say "I want my cake, and I want to eat it too," just say it instead of going through this shit which pretty much means the same thing.

You want to say that this argument has merit when it comes to the issue of reparations, yet when I accused you of using this argument to say Japan shouldn't pay, you pretend you never used it, as well as pretending you never denied saying they shouldn't pay.

So does Japan have a sufficient break in government or not? I accept yes or no answers.

That argument does have merit and needs to be considered when it comes to the issue of reparations. In the case of Japan, however, the argument is not strong enough to get Japan off the hook for paying reparations. Japan does have a sufficient break in continuity in its government. But this is not enough for it to avoid paying reparations.

I have no problems with the idea of a neutral mediator is both sides agree. I do have a problem with you saying this with a straight face after all that effort you went into in talking about doing things at an international stage like the UN makes it worse.

Did you miss the fact that I said that disputes between nations are already on the international stage? Or the fact that one of the purposes of the UN is to resolve such disputes between nations? Or that there is a difference between "I'm asking the UN to act as a mediator in our dispute" and "I'm going to stand on a platform at the UN and shout offensive things at people".

[Metahive]

OK, so can any of the Japan-lovers actually give a coherent argument about why China and Korea shouldn't react to Japan's historical revisionism, worship of war-criminals and attempts to claim stolen territory? I see a lot of long-winded hand-wringing but not a lot of substance here.

[mr friendly guy]

I want to be completely clear on your position here. It is absurd to suggest that government's and individuals should be held to the same standard when it comes to any kind of rhetoric (including dredging up the past). Do you disagree with this statement?

If you haven't figured out my position after it was drilled into you so many times, I can't help you.

As I have already stated multiple times in this thread. I NEVER argued that Japan didn't have to pay at all.

Sure you did buddy. Is this more of the same where words don't mean what they are commonly held to mean, but can mean whatever the hell you want to save face?

We have been over that several times and I demolished your attempts to "prove" that I said that Japan did not have to pay anything. This whole time I was merely arguing that a comparison between Britain and Japan was flawed. As for Japan only having to pay billions, I was skeptical because I was under the impression that such payments would be made nation to nation. Once it was clear that Japan only had to pay money to individuals I dropped the objection. Since my objection was based on a misunderstanding of your position, and I dropped it once I fully understood your position I fail to see how that counts as me "losing" or contradicting myself.

How the fuck do you misunderstand the word billions? The same way you misunderstood slippery slope. Or the same way you read denialism as WWII crimes?

The "rational" for why individuals and national governments cannot be held to the same standard is that national governments have more responsibilities. I said "when internet debates go sour, a tiny number of people get annoyed. When international diplomacy between neighbouring countries goes sour, people die in large numbers" to demonstrate that there is far more at stake when national governments engage in international diplomacy than when private individuals get into internet debates (which in turn was suppose to explain why individuals cannot be held to the same standard as national governments). I even said as much in the next sentence when I said, "in other words, private individuals have less responsibility than national governments and can act accordingly". You either didn't read what I said or you intentionally took the sentence out of context in yet another attempt to make it look like I was contradicting myself. There is nothing in this paragraph that even remotely implies that aggressive rhetoric and international diplomacy automatically leads to "international diplomacy between neighbouring countries going sour", please point out right now where than is implied.

Its implied it was in answer to a question why is it bad for a government to do the same thing.

BTW - if the government has more responsibility, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard, not a lower one which is what you are doing?

Lets rehash exactly what was in that article. It was referring to the execution of the British citizen Akmal Shaikh for drug dealing and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemning China for doing so. Akmal Shaikh was executed in December 29 2009. That article you posted was was written in 30 December 2009. THE VERY NEXT DAY! Its not like Gordon Brown went digging through China's past to bring up a long forgotten case to bash a country. This was a direct reaction to something that had happened one day ago, and its not like Gordon Brown used it as an excuse to bash past cases either as he went out of his way to state that he was referring specifically to this case. You have the nerve to accuse me of changing the word record when you act like criticizing something that happened a day ago is identical to criticizing a nation's human rights record. A human rights record, by its very nature, requires an analysis of multiple cases , side by side, so you can establish a pattern and try to predict how that nation will act in the future.

Sure thats what happened, not. You doing more special pleading. An example doesn't count because he will be revoke sometime in the future (doesn't mean its not happening now). An example doesn't count because it was done long ago (even though its continued now). An example doesn't count because EU leaders don't meet as frequently as you arbitarily decide when they should meet. This is just more of the same bullshit.

I said that Britain and Japan were different because I felt that your comparison did not entirely fit. You could have simply posted a better example (like Germany) but instead you had to derail this thread by accusing me if arguing that Japan shouldn't have to pay (something I never did ). You then continued to waste both of our times by constantly accusing me of arguing that Japan shouldn't pay despite me saying multiple times throughout this thread that I was not arguing that Japan should pay. You even did it in your last post. How are you so hell bent on dragging this non-issue out?

Maybe because you seem hell bent on pretending you never said something. That just kind of rubs me the wrong way.

I meant that Costa Rica is one of the few nations where the reality is that it does not need a military. For the vast majority of nations (including China) the reality is that they DO need a military. This is only a contradict if you think that acknowledging that exceptions to the rules exist is itself a contradiction.

And if read it properly, you would know I mentioned its unrealistic also in the fact that every other nation brings up the past in disputes. I even pointed out where you said, yeah I don't agree with Israel, Japan doing x either. In other words, you also acknowledge other nations also do it, hence its unrealistic to expect China to be the only one to keep quiet.

The issue was always about Japan refusing to recognize a past event (its WW2 crimes). Not to mention, Japanese denialism, while a current event, is still a red herring because China wants more than just acknowledgement that such crimes happened from Japan.

No you fuckwit, here is what happened. You tried to defend Jester by pointing out I was being hypocritical when I wasn't. The reason was I was attacking him for not adhering to his own rule against raising tensions when it suited him. You tried to attack on the grounds that he was raising tensions over a recent event while I also criticised him in a SEPARATE post for digging up the past. When I explained the difference, you floundered accused me of hypocrisy until I posted a link, showing that I was criticising him purely for failure to raise tensions. I even needed to underline that before you got it through your thick head. You then proceed to say, well it doesn't matter anyway, because there is still a different between raising a dispute over a recent event, and one long ago. I then point out, it doesn't really matter to you, because you will still object to it. I gave an example of a recent event which I knew you have already objected to, eg denialism. Thus you would still object to that event on the grounds that its raising tensions unnecessarily, irregardless of whether its from the past or the present. In other words you are holding two positions which are contradictory, and was waiting for you to give up one of them. Instead we are treated to a comedy of errors where you somehow read denialism as WWII crimes. D-E-N-I-A-L-I-S-M. See the difference in spelling. Good. Finally we get you using a "who me" type position, and saying that we both know you were talking about WWII crimes.

The topic was always on Japanese war crimes, when you said denialism wasn't three generations ago, I assumed you were accusing me of saying something I didn't say (again) to strawman me.

Actually it was you trying to argue that there is a difference between bringing up a recent complaint vs one less recent. I pointed out it wouldn't matter, because you would still object. What the fuck do you think "under your own criteria, you fail" is supposed to mean?

The phrase "digging up the past" is a subjective one and we both have clearly have different definitions of what I means. I have already stated that I regard it as focusing on specific wrong doings in specific countries. Also, your argument in the previous post (the one I was referring to) was a strawman because it involved taking my argument (about China saying that "we all have skeletons in the closet" and distorting it by having China use it in the most pathetic manner possible.

As opposed to your scenario where the US folds without arguing back because China says your bull fucking magic words?

The USA would never said "which of our skeletons are you referring to" because it knows that that would open the flood gates for every group it wronged, from the Native Indians, to the Latin American nations to the Middle Eastern nations to cry "remember us". The USA knows that it making such a statement was "what skeletons" would leave it wide open and no American government would ever be stupid enough to do so.

So genius, how is the US supposed to be frighten of opening the floodgates, unless... wait for it...wait for it.... there is implicit acknowledgement that a) nations (eg the ME and Latin American nations) can dig up the past in contradiction to your rules (using your BS definition of digging up the past of course) and b) in digging up the past it puts the US at a disadvantage, or gives these other countries an advantage, which is against your claim that a country which refuses to use such methods will not be at a disadvantage?

No matter how you spin it, for your rules to work when someone refuses to play by it, requires someone else to break it. But then this is what happens when you don't actually think through your position clearly.

As for the second part of your argument, ignoring the fact that I am referring to how nations act in the real world, rather than by my idea, even if all nations did operate under my idea they could join China's side if they believe that taking a stand again the warmongering USA would force them to back down out of fear of getting into a fight that the USA knows it would lose.

What? You mean your idea is unrealistic, because nations in the real world don't act on your idea. Wow another concession, after all that song and dance that for the most part, its realistic. Also point two, if nations did join China's side, it would raise tensions over an issue which isn't genocide, hence it violates your own criteria. Again.

I never said current ownership is the ideal why to settle territorial disputes. You asked for a way a country can justify a territorial claim, I gave you one. So I take it you have dropped your ridiculous claim that citing current ownership is bringing up the past.

So you came up with another retarded idea. And no I haven't, because every fucking country justifies their current ownership of land based on past claims.

1. You should not have brought up denialism was I was never referring to it. My point has always been that Japan is denying past events (its WW2 crimes) and China is opposing Japan for doing this in a heavy handed manner.

This was addressed above.

2. My position has always been that I recognize that there is a difference between raising tensions over past issues vs raising tensions over present issues. This has been consistent from the start (case to point, raising tensions over genocide that is currently happening vs genocide that happened in the past). Once again you have failed to prove a contradiction in my points.

Except of course you still objected to raising tensions irregardless of whether its from the past or not. Thats why you kept on saying I disagree with Jester, but I see a difference wah wah. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.

Except for the fact that you did not argue that a break in continuity makes no difference. You implied that there wasn't a break in continuity multiple times. If you had just said "yes, there is a clear break in continuity between Imperial Japan and Imperial Japan but it makes no difference, Japan should still pay" I would have agreed with you. Instead you derailed this topic by both accusing me of saying that Japan shouldn't pay and then implying that there wasn't not a clear break in continuity between Imperial Japan and modern Japan.

Ignoring for a moment I said the argument is invalid here (No one denies the governments are different moron. The previous post pointed out that argument is invalid despite the claim being true), and here
(Because it shows that Japan doesn't even believe this "break in continuity" argument and they still take up the debts from the previous different government, as evidenced by the fact they do pay some compensation for what the previous government did. Ergo, the fact that a present government is different from a previous one is invalid as an argument because they are quite happy to behave as a continuation from the previous one), and here again (For fuck's sake, this just proves my point you dumbfuck. Its not that "breaks in the continuity of governments" don't occur, its that its an invalid argument for settlement of debt. The fact is, Japan doesn't even believe this because it still compensates victims (of crimes it does acknowledge). You know whats funny? You don't even believe this "break in continuity argument". How do I know this. Because you fucking admitted they should compensate. So thanks for throwing up this "break in continuity" argument when no successor government (including Japan) believes in it, and which even you don't believe in it. What a waste).

I said it numerous times. You failed to understand, and now trying to save face, it was me who failed to communicate properly, that the break in continuity argument is invalid and I was really trying to argue that there wasn't a break in continuity despite me pointing out there is a difference and NOT knowing how different constitutes a sufficient break anyway.

Because when you accused me of saying something that I did not said I briefly assumed that I must have accidentally said it some where in the thread and decided to clarify things.

I love how the clarification means a totally different thing.

Did you miss the fact that I said that disputes between nations are already on the international stage?

No. Did you miss the fact that under your own logic by internationalising it further, you are raising tensions even more? I guess thats a yes.

Or the fact that one of the purposes of the UN is to resolve such disputes between nations?

Or the fact that it was you who said bringing things up at the international level makes it worse.

Or that there is a difference between "I'm asking the UN to act as a mediator in our dispute" and "I'm going to stand on a platform at the UN and shout offensive things at people".

Don't look at me, I am not the one saying such gross generalisations like saying something on an international stage makes it worse.

[hongi]

I wonder what he's going to say...

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to replace a landmark 1995 apology for suffering caused in Asia during World War Two with an unspecified "forward-looking statement", a newspaper reported on Monday.

Abe, a hawkish conservative who is known to want to recast Japan's position on its wartime militarism in less apologetic tones, led his party to a landslide victory in a December 16 election.

He outlined his intention to restate Japan's position in an interview with the conservative Sankei newspaper, but he did not give details.

Any hint that Japan is back-tracking from the 1995 apology, issued by then Prime Minister Tomic Murayama, is likely to outrage neighbors, particularly China and North and South Korea, which endured years of brutal Japanese rule.

"The Murayama statement was a statement issued by Socialist Party Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama," Abe was quoted as saying in an interview with the conservative Sankei newspaper published on Monday.

"I want to issue a forward-looking statement that is appropriate for the 21st century," he said.

Abe said he would consult experts about the details and the timing of statement.

He has also said he wants to loosen the constraints of Japan's post-war pacifist constitution.

Abe hails from a wealthy political family that includes a grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, who was a wartime cabinet minister who was imprisoned but never tried as a war criminal after the war. He went on to become prime minister from 1957 to 1960.

First elected to parliament in 1993 after the death of his father, a former foreign minister, Abe rose to national fame by adopting a tough stance toward North Korea in a dispute over Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea decades ago.

More recently, he has promised not to yield in a territorial row with China over tiny islands in the East China Sea - known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China - and boost defense spending to counter China's growing influence.

During a first stint as prime minister, which began in September 2006 and lasted a year, Abe pushed through a parliamentary revision of an education law to "restore patriotism" in school curriculums.

[Metahive]

O, but that's OK because Japan gave us tentacle-rape hentai and lolicon and China didn't, so they need to shut up and suck it or they'll be accused by sagely-knowing Westerners as vile tension-raisers.

[Pelranius]

That's going to pretty much fuck up any remaining chances of Korean-Japanese security cooperation if he retracts the apology.

Maybe Abe really is a Chinese agent.

[AniThyng]

O, but that's OK because Japan gave us tentacle-rape hentai and lolicon and China didn't, so they need to shut up and suck it or they'll be accused by sagely-knowing Westerners as vile tension-raisers.

Do western otaku really take sides based on such a thought process? This seems as stupid as supporting the Iraq War because I like hollywood movies and american computer games.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

O, but that's OK because Japan gave us tentacle-rape hentai and lolicon and China didn't, so they need to shut up and suck it or they'll be accused by sagely-knowing Westerners as vile tension-raisers.

Do western otaku really take sides based on such a thought process? This seems as stupid as supporting the Iraq War because I like hollywood movies and american computer games.

Misplaced nationalism. You can glorify a group without being a part of it. George Orwell wrote an incredibly kickass essay about nationalism that heavily discusses this, among other things.

[mr friendly guy]

O, but that's OK because Japan gave us tentacle-rape hentai and lolicon and China didn't, so they need to shut up and suck it or they'll be accused by sagely-knowing Westerners as vile tension-raisers.

Funny how you mention lolicon and Japan. There was a poster here a few years ago with a Japanese handle KazuakiShimazu who tried to explain war crimes away as "in war people die" and tried to argue that Japanese shouldn't compensate rape of Nanking victims even though they are still alive based on the average life expectancy of Chinese citizens and used an appeal to motive to try and ridicule young people who supported compensation (ie the young people only do it because the money will flow to them). Somehow he avoided the moderators attention while being an apologist fuckwit. He was finally banned for this creepy defence of paedophilia.

[Gandalf]

O, but that's OK because Japan gave us tentacle-rape hentai and lolicon and China didn't, so they need to shut up and suck it or they'll be accused by sagely-knowing Westerners as vile tension-raisers.

Do western otaku really take sides based on such a thought process? This seems as stupid as supporting the Iraq War because I like hollywood movies and american computer games.

Look at it this way: Japan can be seen as the land of samurai, anime, robots and videogames. China can be seen as the land of Tiananmen Square and sweatshops.

It's all about characterisation.

[Iron Bridge]

I think it is really quite simple. All these moralistic justifications are for the little people, not believed or cared about by anyone in power. The question is can China, as the currently and projected future stronger party draw some advantage from confrontation with Japan?

The answer is yes, they can take de-facto ownership of all the islands of the West Pacific, and when that is secure, perhaps formal ownership with nominal concessions to Japan.

Is this good?

To my mind, no, for two reasons. First, because China is a fascist dictatorship and we would rather that those are weaker than stronger. Second, because in the modern age wars are silly, causing more harm even to the victor than the spoils are worth, without in the nuclear age any realistic prospect of total victory. Perhaps you think China can play chicken and win, securing all it wants without the need to actually fire shots. Don't count on it.

[Aaron MkII]

China is a fascist dictatorship?

Forgive my ignorance but doesn't facism require a strong emphasis on the military, ala Germany and Italy? China doesn't seem to have that.

[hongi]

To my mind, no, for two reasons. First, because China is a fascist dictatorship

Did we enter the Twilight Zone? What the fuck?

[Iron Bridge]

I hope at least no one will dispute China is a dictatorship!

For fascist, well, it's become a vague term for an authoritarian state that isn't socialist. In specifics, though, China's post-liberalisation economic model more closely resembles fascism than either socialism or western mixed markets: large nationalised industries co-existing with incestuous public-private cartels. Its regimented social structure with controls on speech, knowledge distribution and internal movement, backed by secret police are common to fascist and socialist countries. Its strong nationalism and territorial revanchism are hallmark fascist foreign policy.

China is certainly the closest we have today to a fascist state, alongside the Russian Federation and some smaller countries like Belarus.

[ray245]

I hope at least no one will dispute China is a dictatorship!

Wait, did you even understand the meaning of dictatorship? Doesn't dictatorship meant that power is concentrated in a single person?

China is most definitely isn't a dictatorship just because they do not have nationwide elections. They are ruled by a single party rather than a single person. Which is why they are renewing leadership after a decade.

You really do not understand enough about China to be commentating on this.

[Iron Bridge]

I hope at least no one will dispute China is a dictatorship!

Wait, did you even understand the meaning of dictatorship? Doesn't dictatorship meant that power is concentrated in a single person?

No. That's the [literal] meaning of autocracy however; perhaps you got confused.

Merriam-Webster: "3.
a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique"

PS. even if you were right about this, do you mean to say that single party rule is somehow justified and perfectly OK? Or is it just nitpicking?

PPS. I am not even sure China is not an autocracy; the Chinese constitution itself is vague on the powers on the leadership of the communist party, in large part because the communist party itself is considered to be above the law. Of course in no country is all practical power literally exercised by a single man, even in those where legally a single man is sovereign. The feudal monarchies are the best example of this, but it was true in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, even Roman dictatorships also.

[ray245]

a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique"

The small clique still doesn't hold absolute power.

PS. even if you were right about this, do you mean to say that single party rule is somehow justified and perfectly OK? Or is it just nitpicking?

While it would be nice if China is a fully stable democracy, I am OK with a single party state that can lift more people off the poverty line.

It is not as if being a democracy will make a superpower any nicer to the countries it wish to influence.

[Metahive]

Do you know what's funny? For most of its post-war history Japan was ruled by one and the same party, the LDP. But hey, as I said, Japan gave us lolicon and tentacle-rape hentai while China didn't, so hooray for double-standards!

[Iron Bridge]

a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique"

The small clique still doesn't hold absolute power.

At the outside, the CPC is 6% of the population.

The actual power is held by the top leadership, an even tinier proportion.

PS. even if you were right about this, do you mean to say that single party rule is somehow justified and perfectly OK? Or is it just nitpicking?

While it would be nice if China is a fully stable democracy, I am OK with a single party state that can lift more people off the poverty line.

Which is, like, totally not something democracies often do? All the rich countries are democracies.

It is not as if being a democracy will make a superpower any nicer to the countries it wish to influence.

By the historical record that's just plain false. "US Empire" rhetoric is just that - US is not comparable in any way to Nazi Germany, USSR, even relatively incompetent dictatorships like Fascist Italy.

But it's not so much whether they're "nicer" to their suzerains, but what is the consequence of being their suzerains? If the US comes and forces your country to be like the US, that's actually a pretty good deal. Surrender, you'll enjoy it! If PRC comes and forces you to be more like the PRC, you might have bigger problems. Or they might just not care how you run your country; go ahead, kill dissenters, just keep sending us more iron ore. Which is what they're doing now.

Do you know what's funny? For most of its post-war history Japan was ruled by one and the same party... so hooray for double-standards!

So was Detroit. You're a moron.