Two Japanese land on disputed island: coastguard

National Jul. 07, 2012 - 05:26AM JST ( 78 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

78 Comments

0

ohayo206Jul. 07, 2012 - 07:11AM JST

And so began WWIII....cue the music.
-1

OssanAmericaJul. 07, 2012 - 07:18AM JST

"“The Diaoyu Islands and affiliated islands have been China’s inherent territory since ancient times,” he said."

I don't reallyconsider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.
3

paulinusaJul. 07, 2012 - 07:49AM JST

Plenty of childish behavior by all the parties involved.
0

noriyosan73Jul. 07, 2012 - 08:02AM JST

Kita Kojima / Bei Xiaodao Minami Kojima / Nan Xiaodao. Area, 7 square kilometres (1700 acres. Use it for bombing and artillery practice until it is an atoll.
-3

yokattaJul. 07, 2012 - 08:29AM JST

Quite childish, I must say.
0

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 08:38AM JST

I don't reallyconsider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.

The PRC's date of joining the U.N. is not relevant. China existed long before the U.N. and even longer before the U.N. decided to recognize and admit the PRC....so they could finally file their claim to the islands.

You seem to have reality confused with paperwork, a common mental block among conservatives, I know.
3

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 08:42AM JST

“The illegal acts of the Japanese right-wing activists severely violate Chinese territorial sovereignty.

Cue violins. Melodramatic statements over two nuts swimming to an island gives the acts of the nuts credence. Should have taken the bull by the horns and said "These two fools swimming to our islands changes nothing; except to expose two fools. They really should not violate our sovereignty, but I hope they had a nice visit to China!"
-7

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 08:43AM JST

Officials of the city landed on part of the city. What the National Government is doing is against the Constitution. They really need to grow a spine. China claims the ocean almost to the Okinawa shoreline and there is no doubt they will claim my home. It matter not that Ishihara buys the islands, then they will pay Tokyo rent money. The courts in the mainland are bought by the jiji who control the central government. They would sell their own children for extra profit.
2

Badge213Jul. 07, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

Tranquility base, the eagle has landed.
-3

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 09:17AM JST

troyinjapan, the islands are part of Ishigawa city! 25 million is not a lot of money. It use to cost me 1.2 million to rent a tiny 3LDK Sagamihara! What about the Constitution?
2

tideofironJul. 07, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

Let China, Korea, and Japan bicker over their islands or any other scrap among them. Somehow it all seems so deserving, all three xenophobic societies going round and round with each other forever.
2

sfjp330Jul. 07, 2012 - 09:24AM JST

Neither side wants the settlement of this dispute to set an unfavorable precedent for the resolution of other similar troubles. For China, the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands has a strong implication for concern with their sovereignty in the South China Sea. The reason that China cannot soften its attitude toward the Senkaku Islands is clear. If it softens its posture over the Senkaku, it might be considered as softening of its position on the Spratly and Paracel islands disputes in the South China Sea. For Japan, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute also implies Japanese attitude toward the territorial disputes with Russia over the “Kurile Islands” and with Korea over the Dokdo Island. Any softening on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute might undermine the Japanese claims to both the “Kurile Islands” and the Dokdo Island. Since international credibility is taken into account, both China and Japan are adamant and steadfast in their claims to the disputed islands.
-1

DogJul. 07, 2012 - 09:38AM JST

tideofironJul. 07, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

Let China, Korea, and Japan bicker over their islands or any other scrap among them. Somehow it all seems so deserving, all three xenophobic societies going round and round with each other forever.

Very true and what is sadly needed is a nice big north east Asian war among themselves, to bring them to their senses and realize the futility of hyper nationalism and herrenvolkism in the age of modern warfare.

A bit like the devestating effects that WW 2 had on the western European mindset after 1945.

Nothing else will resolve it and America should stay well out of the way, if it knows what's good for it.
2

LowlyJul. 07, 2012 - 09:45AM JST

Join the dance, it's the right-winger bop!
4

TamaramaJul. 07, 2012 - 09:49AM JST

Apart from making a bit of noise about it, Beijing knows it can't do much about this. But I can't help but see the irony of this dispute getting airtime at the same time as that of the Kurils. A very similar dispute in reverse. But jeez, these two guys have to be A-Class idiots.
-3

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 09:54AM JST

troyinjapan, I pointed out in another threat which parts of the Constitution the National government is breaking. The Okinawa only laws are against the Constitution. The national government can not make laws in only a local area without the consent of the local people. My guess is the government will do nothing. If it goes to trial then all of the Okinawa only laws will be brought into question. This includes forcing people to rent their land for US bases.

Article 95: A special law, applicable only to one local public entity, cannot be enacted by the Diet without the consent of the majority of the voters of the local public entity concerned, obtained in accordance with law.
-2

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 09:57AM JST

Dog, America has pledge to defend Japan. If they do not it will open a door best left closed if not locked. Japan has physical control of these islands. What is more natural then for owners to develop their land?
2

kwattJul. 07, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

If Japan Is really controlling the Senkaku islands, its government would have to do something remarkable like Russia did to Northern islands. Otherwise it would lose them someday.
1

YubaruJul. 07, 2012 - 10:08AM JST

Officials of the city landed on part of the city.

Not if the government declares them off limits. There are plenty of places all around Japan that people can not freely go even though the land or territory are within their boundaries.

The national government is right, with the intent to maintain the status quo and peace in the region, to place them off limits.

The politician who went ashore should be arrested and charged with trespassing as he did not have permission to go there.
3

marcelitoJul. 07, 2012 - 10:09AM JST

What is more natural than for the owners to develop their island"..indeed...I guess next time a Russian official goes to Kurils again and pledges to develop those islands there will be nothing to argue about by the Japanese side then? It's also funny to see people who usually comment on how American military should get out of Japan for being such a burden doing a U- turn and saying that US has pledged to promise and defend Japan when it suits them. Kinda double standards isn't it ?
1

YubaruJul. 07, 2012 - 10:09AM JST

The national government can not make laws in only a local area without the consent of the local people.

Huh? The "national" government does it all the time. The "local" government can make it's own laws as well. Let's not forget that those islands are private property right now, LEASED by the national government, who CAN dictate who can and can not go there.
-1

kwattJul. 07, 2012 - 10:23AM JST

The politician who went ashore should be arrested and charged with trespassing as he did not have permission to go there.

Politicians can go there if they report to the government "We go there and examine the islands officially". No need of permission. But ordinary people can't do it.
2

Laurenço Iscariot ShellsJul. 07, 2012 - 10:35AM JST

I know that everyone finds the irony of the northern island dispute popping up about the same time as this. What about the sheer irony of Taiwan wanting to claim dibs on the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands? They get in a preparation H buttroar when China claims that Taiwan doesn't really exists and that it belongs to them. Now they want the Senkaka YouDai islands as well? It all boils down to the economics of fishing, drilling, and mining.
-2

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 10:38AM JST

It's also funny to see people who usually comment on how American military should get out of Japan for being such a burden doing a U- turn and saying that US has pledged to promise and defend Japan when it suits them. Kinda double standards isn't it ?

Yes and no. Fact is they are here and use Japanese land and money. One might not want the appointed bodyguard, but if their salary is drawn from someone's account, its not odd to expect some work, is it?

I can only speak for myself, but I want the American military out, I want them out of affairs on the islands, and I do live here in Japan, and my tax money does go to them.

And contrary to troyinjapan's assertation, I am on the Japanese side of the fence, but I would like to see these islands returned to China. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Japan MUST do it. I think the Chinese have lacked military control for so long, they no longer have a valid claim, and Japanese military control, followed by American military control, followed by giving the islands to Japan, followed by Japanese military control means the islands belong to Japan in reality, and this pattern is historically valid. But the trouble is that if Japan goes that route, they further validate the doctrine of "might makes right", and they may as well shut up about the Kuriles.

Japan took the islands in a hostile move. It can keep the islands yes, but its not a good precedent for the future or Sino-Japanese relations. Japan should be more civilized, admit how it obtained the islands, reject that, and give them back to China.
1

YubaruJul. 07, 2012 - 10:41AM JST

Politicians can go there if they report to the government "We go there and examine the islands officially". No need of permission. But ordinary people can't do it.

I don't think jumping off of a fishing boat, and swimming to shore qualifies as an official political visit.

Correct me if I am wrong here but I also believe that politicians are responsible to report their intent prior to going as well.
-3

JeffLeeJul. 07, 2012 - 10:43AM JST

@Kwatt

like Russia did to the Northern islands.

Russia put residents to live there, and those people live and work there today. The Senkakus have no Japanese residents, making it difficult for Japan to insist it owns the islands, especially as the islands are so close to Taiwan and China.
3

YubaruJul. 07, 2012 - 10:56AM JST

troyinjapan, the islands are part of Ishigawa city!

Yuri, for someone who claims to hail from Okinawa you should know better. There is no Ishigawa City in Okinawa.

It's called Ishigaki.
-2

DogJul. 07, 2012 - 11:01AM JST

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 10:38AM JST

Yes and no. Fact is they are here and use Japanese land and money. One might not want the appointed bodyguard, but if their salary is drawn from someone's account, its not odd to expect some work, is it?

What's the going rate for the senseless death of an American 19 year old soldier?

I think the relationship is a lot more complex than your description. Purely in fiscal terms, a lot of the taxes the japanese pay to the US government, for the staioning of their soldiers in Japan, were generated by the American consumer buying japanese manufactured products
1

tideofironJul. 07, 2012 - 11:01AM JST

If you think the US is going to commit to a war over a couple of islands that no one has ever heard of, you're just plain crazy. American people aren't willing (nor should they be willing) to put up with their sons and daughters coming home in body bags over some bickering in Asia. Somehow Japanese nationalists have a disconnect between political will and popular sentiment. It's like watching those dudes protesting the US Marines on the bus going to a field exercise in Oita with the "Go Home Marines" signs. You really think those guys want to be here and not be at home with their families back in the US? Do you really think American people walk around going, "Gee, I'm so happy that our military is in Japan and it should really stay there!" No way, it's because there are high level strategic agreements in the area that are acceptable for protecting the US and Japan. As soon as that position becomes politically untenable due to popular sentiment (either through conflict, cost, or whatever) the US would pull its troops out in a heartbeat. You don't want the US troops here? Guess what, they don't want to be here either.
0

kwattJul. 07, 2012 - 11:07AM JST

@jefflee

It doesn't matter whether Japanese live there or not. And it doesn't matter whether the islands are geologically closer to Taiwan/China. Japan is actually controlling the islands now. I said more politicians and scientists are(had) better visit the islands more often for something. This is at least they can do constantly. It seems Japanese visit it once in 10 years to try not piss off China. This is not good at all.
2

toguroJul. 07, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

This looks like one of those articles where YuriOtani is going to wave the American flag, until the next article where she can post her normal "Yankee go home" comments!! LOL

"Taiwan reasserted its claim to the outcrops, and urged Tokyo “to exercise self-restraint and not to interfere with our sovereignty”, according to a statement from the island’s foreign ministry."

Does China know about the above quote, or are they taking a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach?
1

OssanAmericaJul. 07, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

troyinjapanJul. 07, 2012 - 09:36AM JST What I don't understand is why the Japanese coast guard didn't arrest these two idiots like they did the Chinese >fisherman who entered the same area.

The Chindese fishing boat captain wsan't arrested for being in those waters. He was arrested for deliberately ramming the JCG vessels. Twice. Didn't watch the video footage?
-11

Thomas AndersonJul. 07, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

Who gives a freaking crap! East Asia and Russia need to grow up.
1

OssanAmericaJul. 07, 2012 - 11:16AM JST

troyinjapanJul. 07, 2012 - 08:41AM JST Not so fast. It is not nearly as simple as that. Let's use this as a platform. It holds both views.

No it really is as simple as that. And that it is within the defense parameters ofb the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty. And that Japanese posession and control if the islands is in the intersts of the United States and all of Asian allies who are concerned in he face of Chinese military and territorial expansion. It's not an academic issue.
-2

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 11:20AM JST

a lot of the taxes the japanese pay to the US government, for the staioning of their soldiers in Japan, were generated by the American consumer buying japanese manufactured products

I just cannot figure out why you did not factor the price of tea in China into that formula! LOL

I never thought I would ever see anyone try so hard to link the American consumer to the Japanese taxpayer to the U.S. military! Please. I am an American citizen and I DONT want to be linked to the U.S. military and government AT ALL.

But I simply posit that since the American military is stationed here, like it or not, (and putting Japan on the map of those who call America enemy among other things I mentioned) its not at all odd for Japanese to expect America to defend Japan, even those crumby islands.
-1

DogJul. 07, 2012 - 11:25AM JST

OssanAmericaJul. 07, 2012 - 11:16AM JST

No it really is as simple as that. And that it is within the defense parameters ofb the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.

Every time this same point keeps coming up, when the Senkakus is in the news. For God's sake go and google for a minute and see the comments by Clinton last year. NO IT IS NOT. JAPAN IS WITHIN THE DEFENSE PARAMETERS OF THE US JAPAN MUTUAL DEFENSE AGREEMENT and the US has been very evasive about ownership of the Senkakus.

I think it is you actually who keeps bringing up this point. Can you go and google for a minute and put an end to this nonsense statement. If the Japanese decide to take on the Chinese in the middle of no-man's sea of the East Asian sea, then its their fight and their fight alone.
-3

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 11:26AM JST

The national government needs to be kept in check. Not doing so lead Japan into invading Korea, Manchuria and China. Not keeping them in line lead them into Pearl Harbor. I do think the EEZ zone can be negotiated and the area needs to be explored for oil gas. The islands and 12 miles around them is non negotiable. The islands must be returned to the control of Ishigawa City. The national government has to be brought under control.
1

YubaruJul. 07, 2012 - 11:30AM JST

The islands and 12 miles around them is non negotiable. The islands must be returned to the control of Ishigawa City. The national government has to be brought under control.

Everything is negotiable. Again it's ISHIGAKI City, and they ARE in the control of the city. The problem is that Ishihara Shintaro wants to take them away from the control of ISHIGAKI and make them a part of Tokyo, purchased with private funds.

The national government isn't the problem here, it's the Japanese version of some red-necked politicians that need to be brought under control and muzzled.
-3

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

Yea Ishigaki :p no I disagree the national government is getting too powerful again. The problem is China is not willing to negotiate.
-1

Thomas Michael LewisJul. 07, 2012 - 12:46PM JST

Arnt these ones uninhabited? Lets just destroy the Islands with some strong firepower and call it international waters.
3

DogJul. 07, 2012 - 01:07PM JST

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

The problem is China is not willing to negotiate.

You really think so? I think the problem is the japanese as a whole have no negotiation skills.

This listen to the other's opinion and then carry on whaling as before. They listen to the russian opinion that they might be awarded 2 of the islands and then carry on claiming all 4. They listen to Korea's experience of the tyranny of Japan's colonial occupation and then still claim the Dokdo's as theirs. They listen to the Chinese historian's showing records that show China was aware of the Senkaku islands in the 14th century and then continue to claim them as terra nullus frim the 19th century. They listen to the UN's decision on Okinotorishima not being an island and then contiue to claim that Okinotorishima is an island.

Japan wishes to impose it's own domestic narrative onto everyone else. The reason for this is that the Japanese have no skills at negotiating. Once the BS of 'wa' is swept away, Japanese society's negotiation skills boil down to the powerful impose their narrative on the others, and the other's accept that narrative.

That might work domestically but it will totally fail on the international scene. Not only because japan is not the big fish on the lake, but it is the negotiation level of a schoolyard playground, rather than international conferences.
3

Badge213Jul. 07, 2012 - 02:39PM JST

People getting worked up over two blokes in a fishing tolley going for a walk on some stinking rock in the ocean. Man, we gotz folks dieing of starvation in Africa!
0

Herve Nmn L'EisaJul. 07, 2012 - 07:09PM JST

Maybe there are some of those "Occupy-someplace" folks who'd like to make camp there and call it/them home.
0

nigelboyJul. 07, 2012 - 11:48PM JST

This listen to the other's opinion and then carry on whaling as before. They listen to the russian opinion that they might be awarded 2 of the islands and then carry on claiming all 4. They listen to Korea's experience of the tyranny of Japan's colonial occupation and then still claim the Dokdo's as theirs. They listen to the Chinese historian's showing records that show China was aware of the Senkaku islands in the 14th century and then continue to claim them as terra nullus frim the 19th century. They listen to the UN's decision on Okinotorishima not being an island and then contiue to claim that Okinotorishima is an island.

The Japan continues to whale under provision set forth in IWC. The so-called sanctuary set by the anti-whaling nations are not based on scientific background, hence it should be deemed null as per IWC. The Japanese government claims 4 islands based on historical evidence that under no time until the Soviet occupation of 1945 that the islands southward uf Urup was under any soverignty of Soviets nor was it taken by greed from other nations. Takeshima has NOTHING to do with Japan's annexation period of Korea for they were incorporated by Japan legally via international law at that time. And for China, "records" have little to do with islands. What needs to be shown is the effective control and continued soverignty and administration of the islands. The mere fact that China themselves recognized the islands as Japanese until the 1970's (75 years since the incorporation) and were suddently claiming rights to it after UN report of the possibility of resources makes their argument even weaker. And finally, the UNCLCS did not rule Okinotorishima is not an island for they are not the authoritative body to make that decision. However, the decision to extend Japan's continental shelf based on Okinotorishima southward (Kyushu Palau) is delayed to the next review period based on rants from SK and China who both also claim EEZ on some submerged reef. Classic hypocricy.
0

PT24881Jul. 08, 2012 - 11:32AM JST

Tokyo's naive tactic is to make 'unauthorized' landings or 'accidentally trespassings ( the coast Guard let go through the strict defense net are exclusively Japanese politicians )' becoming regular events -- Japan's neighbors are thoroughly aware of the tricks here
0

PT24881Jul. 08, 2012 - 11:46AM JST

Take 1 : facing the two J politicians -- unenthusiastic.. sounded escorting the two men to the island

"Despite our warning, they dived into the sea from a fishing boat and reached the island,” a Japanese coastguard official said, adding that the two stayed for 90 minutes before leaving."

Take 2 : facing the activists from Taiwan -- genuine battle scenario

Several big sized coast guard vessels & three speed-boats with armed troops kept powerful warning & violently threatening the Taiwanese fishing boat (50 tons) including usual technique by ramping into the rear of one of the Taiwanese vessels. The only difference was : they did not arrest the Taiwanese as in Sept 2010 vis-a-vis the Mainland Chinese.
1

J TurnerJul. 08, 2012 - 12:25PM JST

The mere fact that China themselves recognized the islands as Japanese until the 1970's (75 years since the incorporation) and were suddently claiming rights to it after UN report of the possibility of resources makes their argument even weaker.

So true!

At the moment the four islands belong to the Kuriharas who bought them from Kenji Koga in the 70s. Kenji bought these islands from the Japanese government in 1932 (thanks again for posting the link).

Now the government wants to buy them back? I'd say go for it! Paying 25 million yen a year in "rent" is more of a taxpayers waste of money than buying and owning them. Or isn't it, troyinjapan?
0

nigelboyJul. 09, 2012 - 04:09AM JST

Yeah, right. That was all just made up. No researchers involved. Just a bunch of over emotional whale-huggers, right? Hardly. If there was no science involved, prove it. I would love to see that. I am not being cynical at all. I relish someone showing me that I am wrong. It is the only way to grow. But......

Sorry troy. probatio diabolica. This is where the burden of proof is on you.

As far as the four northern islands are concerned, they were ceded to the Japanese by the Russians in 1875 in the Treaty of Saint Petersburg. Therefore they are Japanese

False. The islands north of Etorfu were exchanged for Sahkahlin. Hence, the four islands were not part of this exchange. The four islands were taken "by force" by the Soviets in 1945.

U.S. Foreign Affairs records clearly show that Korea became militarily occupied by Japanese forces in February 1904 and lost the ability to conduct foreign relations independently in August of 1904. Korea was powerless to dispute Japan’s illegal 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo. A local Shimane newspaper reporting the incorporation of the islands surely is not what one would call following international law. Forced treaties and forgery of such signatures on the Koreans by Imperialistic Japan should not be considered illegal from the get-go?

Probably got that from reading Korean blogs, I presume.
In any case, it's not that Korea was powerless to dispute. It's that Korean government didn't know the existence for Takeshima as evidenced by complete lack of maps or documents relating to Takeshima prior to Japan's incorporation. Although, Korea was "powerless" from a standpoint of not being able conduct foreign relations(countries other than Japan), they were more than vocal when it came to negotiation with Japan. Hence, if Korea were in fact opposed to Shimane's incorporation, you would find records of it, don't you think? In any case, after the conclusion of the war, Korean forces occupied Takeshima in the 50's killing/injuring/taking hostage Japanese fishermen.

Yeah, I agree with you there. They sure became interested in those islands after that. Can’t fault that one at all. But if that is true, doesn’t Japan often try to support its claim to those islands by producing historical records as well? If the Japanese can do it, then why can’t China?

After 75 years (1895~1970) without opposition, I sincerely doubt their case will have merit. ( Miniquiers and Ecrehos i.e.)

The islands were incorporated without force in 1895 and administered by the local governments continuosly without opposition from China for 75 years.

Clearly hypocrisy? Really, how so? I am not disagreeing with you, I would just like to know how it is hypocrisy for SK and China to claim EEZ on some submerged reef but okay for Japan to do so with a bone thin shelf that reaches out almost 600 nautical miles from its closest islands and am sure that neither CHina or South Korea are making such of a bold claim as Japan is.

Because it's China and Korea who are opposing the island status of Okinotorishima while at the same time China is claiming their EEZ on reefs in South China Sea and Korea in Socotra Rock. It would be hypocritical for Japan IF and ONLY IF Japanese government is officially complaining the legal status of both China and Korea on those said locations.
-3

nigelboyJul. 09, 2012 - 11:29PM JST

Not trying to be impolite at all but, cop out!

Troy. My point is that establishment of sanctuary is not based on scientific background because I can't find it. What you are essentially asking me to do is exactly that. "Devils proof".

The islands were taken by force by the Soviets. And like I said before…..

Yes. That's why Japan has a legitimate claim to the islands. That's my whole point.

Nope! If it should apply to Takeshima, then it should apply here. You can’t have it both ways

No. They were, like the Northern territories, taken by force. Hence Japan has a legitimate claim to the islands. That's my point.

The First Sino-Japanese War broke out between China and Japan in 1894 following a dispute over the sovereignty of Korea. Following its defeat, China ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895. So, the annexation was a direct result of war.

But the islands were never part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Hence, Senkaku was not taken by force. This is proven by the fact that after the war, ROC made no claim to the islands and continue to recognize it as Japanese territory until under the U.N. research indicated that there might be a underwater resrouces near the islands in 1971.

Actually, not only China and South Korea have repeatedly expressed concern over this but also Australia.

Where is the note verbale from Australia?

Furthermore, Japan submitted a request to the commission covering some 740,000 square kilometers

Yes. 4 out the 7 extension of the continental shelf was approved while 2 were rejected and 1 (South of Okinotori/Kyushu-Palau) to be disgussed in the next review. The UNCLS Article 121 is vague in that although Okinori satisfy "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide", Japan's argument is that the definition of "Rock" is undefined in the convention and that no where does it state that it has to satisfy both conditions to be considered as an island. To get back to my point again, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of both China and SK who are objecting "island" claim of Okinotori while at the same time, both countries are essentially doing the same in other areas mentioned above.

You are supportive of Japan

Were Northern territories, Takeshima, and Senkaku taken by force by Japan from other countries? The answer is no. Were Northern territories taken by force by Soviets from Japan? Yes. Were Takeshima taken by force by SK from Japan? Yes. Were Senkaku taken by force by China from Japan? Not yet.

Those are the reasons why I support Japan in these disputes. I hope that clear things up.
-2

nigelboyJul. 10, 2012 - 12:07AM JST

You probably learned more from me, than I, you

That's a definite NO since it appears you just looked up the material just recently. No disrepect to you, BTW.
-1

nigelboyJul. 10, 2012 - 12:29AM JST

What do you mean "definate no"? And why would you think I just looked anything up recently? I'm sorry, are you trying to say that you are the only one who is informed on these issues? Could it be that one of us on this side can also throw down?

I meant "definitely without a doubt" NO. And your counter argument has been seen before by others here in JT on related issues. You have offered nothing new. Sorry. And no. I'm not trying to say that I'm the only one who is informed of the issues. And no. You did not throw it down. Your shot was rejected to the second row.

No disrespect, BTW.
-1

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 10, 2012 - 12:32AM JST

japan shoudl place a foreigenr on teh iusaldns to show that others also support their case. There is one on this thread who i woudl gladly pay extra taxes to be shipped there.

Please go there and support Japan, you knwo it makes snese. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak.