China must stop making threats in maritime disputes: Panetta

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

  • -8

    Saulo Akazawa

    Sounds like a little teen talking to a big bully!!! But do I hope China and Japan will get the message that peace is the only path to prosperity!

  • 21

    CGB Spender

    Let's wait until China will rebound that as a "totally unacceptable" statement.

  • 19

    semperfi

    THANK YOU Leon Panetta, for this clear, unambiguous statement. This gives China no wiggle room.............................And Russia, India, VietNam, Philippines, Indonesia stand in concert behind this statement.

  • 15

    Crazedinjapan

    I think the writing is on the wall now. That was a very subtle way of saying on behalf of other neighboring countries stop with the threats .

    This is the whole reasoning behind China and the billions it's been spending on its forces, right now they possibly think its big enough to push forward on taking what it wants. In contrast it could very well be becoming the threat to world peace in behaving they way they are.

  • -10

    BertieWooster

    Saulo-san

    Sounds like a little teen talking to a big bully!!!

    No, it's one big bully talking to another one!

  • 13

    Jeff Ogrisseg

    Panetta is no "little teen," he was head of CIA before DOD and is probably the toughest SOB in Washington. Beijing ought not to ignore Panetta's friendly advice.

  • 1

    Wakarimasen

    Quite right. This spat could get out of hand. It is mayhem outside the Chinese Embassy today - all the right wing nutjobs bellowing and driving around and so on.

  • -3

    Saulo Akazawa

    Ok, I agree that coming from Panetta, that statement will not be ignored but realistically it is not going to dissuade china to change their policy regarding the territorial dispute. The US do not want to be involved in this mess and they should not, but one could only hope that the words used were a bit stronger.

  • 9

    House Atreides

    China will ignore the US the same way North Korea does. To resolve the issue, the United States should lease the Senkaku Islands from Japan. That would throw a big monkey wrench into China's plans.

  • -18

    Flyfalcon

    Why not Penetta took 7th fleet to Beijing last year? He was in Beijing many times before and he has to make his intention crystal clear. Did he say like now?The answer is No.

    He is more likely school boy with two faces instead of teen.

  • 16

    viking68

    The U.S. is already involved in this mess.

    SDF fighters were scrambled recently because some Chinese fighters were closely trailing a U.S. AWACS plane. The U.S. has been providing early warning radar in this area since mid-January when China invaded Japan's airspace.

    Apparently, Japanese fighters have been scrambled 91 times between Oct. and Dec. as a result of China incursions.

    The PLA General Staff told the Chinese military to prepare for war and have shifted planes to the coast.

    It sounds like the U.S. is ending their silent treatment with Obama, Panetta, and the AP Navy intel chief rebuking China.

  • 13

    GW

    As I have said in the past, the West helped China build up its country/economy, the West can also take China down as much as need be.

    Of course no one wants to have to do that but its quite doable.

    China needs to tone its butt down or it will have the whole world against it, certainly every country in the neighbourhood!

  • 16

    cabadaje

    He was in Beijing many times before and he has to make his intention crystal clear. Did he say like now?The answer is No.

    He was trying to give China a chance to back off without losing face. China, instead, chose to tell its people that Panetta was just paying lip service to the Japanese. They also chose to ignore Panetta very clearly stating that the Senkaku Islands fall under the protection of the treaty. There was absolutely no grey area there. China was told that the Islands would be protected by the US in the event of an invasion.

    Over the next week, China decided to publish statements such as:

    "The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty is a byproduct of the Cold War era and should not damage the interests of third parties, including China."

    "Any nation that seeks to interfere in the Diaoyu Islands issue will experience a loss of their interests."

    "As long as we contain the actions of the United States, Japan will stop its provocative actions." (The implication being that it was the US that had Japan nationalize the islands).

    "We hope (the United States) does not interfere in the territorial dispute over the Diaoyu Islands."

    China cannot credibly say they did not get any warning. The global community has been incredibly lenient with China. It took China's very foolish move last week to finally make the US tell China in no uncertain terms what was expected of it if it wanted to play with the big boys.

  • 7

    WilliB

    “It cannot be a China that threatens other countries. It cannot be a China that threatens, you know, to go after their territories and create territorial disputes.”

    Well Panetta, but that is the China we got, so we have to deal with that.

  • 0

    sanyuyulai

    Let's see how China present its true entity the coming years, after enduring a few decades of evil threats, undoubtedly with "pretentious softening" tactics. Enough.

    The world is peaceful without the trouble makers.

  • -13

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    The big bully speaks.... Lets all gang up on China and loot them again, just like more than a hundred years ago the eight nations plundered China. So much talk about China being a bully and threatening regional stability, the exisitense of America is a threat to man kind. When a nation can just forcibly go into another country, kill their government and take their natural resources, ah, speak of the devil.

  • 13

    WilliB

    TigerinThe_Hermitage:

    " When a nation can just forcibly go into another country, kill their government and take their natural resources, ah, speak of the devil. "

    Like China did in Tibet? In the event, all the Panetta did was to ask China to stop making aggressive military gestures here, nothing more.

  • -11

    BertieWooster

    WilliB,

    Like China did in Tibet?

    "Two wrongs don't make a right."

  • -9

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    WilliB@ Very insightful, now Tibet also not a part of China? Long history, bet talk about Guam, why that is part of America. Its been a staging ground for the war of terror in the Pacific. China might have aggresive gestures but thats so minor compared to going into Iraq uninvited.

    • Moderator

      Stay on topic please. Iraq is not relevant to this discussion.

  • 10

    Elbuda Mexicano

    CHINA understand that they can kill, torture, poison their OWN people night and day, it is a communist country, but once they start trying to bully other countries, AMERICAN ALLIES, like Japan, South Korea etc...they the Beijing communist regime will learn real quick, the HARD WAY what happens to countries that try to make problems, the world is sick and tired of North Korea and China playing these stupid games with modern countries. China NEEDS TO MAKE PROBLEMS with Japan, South Korea, America etc..WHY?? The Chinese KNOW their own people are pissed off with their OWN government, so the Beijing regime uses the NATIONALISM card, making problems with bad, bad Japan and the USA, it is the OLDEST trick in the book, IMHO.

  • 12

    conchobar

    TigerInThe_Hermitage@ Tibet has a long history as an independent country. Yes, it was conquered by various Chinese empires including the Communists, does that invalidate its prior independence and make it, too, China's inherent territory? Also, the PLA invasion of Tibet was just as brutal as the Japanese invasion of China, but I'm sure you aren't aware because Japan isn't the only country that censors history...

  • -6

    smithinjapan

    The most important part of Panetta's statement is this: “One country or the other could react in a way that could create an even greater crisis.”

    He realizes it's not a one-way street, either to war or towards peace and prosperity, and that both countries must work together to achieve it.

    The only question about peaceful dialogue I have is what that dialogue would be given that Japan says there is no dispute and it's a non-issue. What are they going to talk about in terms of the islands?

  • 6

    Cortes Elijah

    I am sick and tired of China. Lets say I hate their governments way. I hate the pure anti-human North Korean government too. All they want to do is take away our lives, our loved ones, our futures! Yet people stand there supporting this??? Hear me. These people are not our ally! They are a threat to us! If it was not for the mighty allied force we would all be suffering. Need evidence? Look at the poor suffering Chinese and North Korean people...they get treated like dirt. I do not want this! North Korea's "Burn the U.S" video was physcopathic....it had happy music with a man dreaming of nuke bombs and burning the U.S.A. Who supports them? CHINA. So explain to me....how the heck do you get the idea to support this country in anyway? I do not. Not until they change all their wrongs. This island belongs in the hands of a friend.. that friend is Japan.

    I hope this whole thing stops. If it does not, may the mighty eagle break the dragons back!

  • 5

    SamuraiBlue

    Not neccessary it only complicates the matter.

    First and last Senkaku is Japan's sovereign territory and PRC is required to fall back, end of story.

    No face keeping for PRC.

  • 9

    tokyo-star

    See how the foreign ministry woman reacted when the press asked her about Chinese locking on to J-ships - she winced and grinned, then said she ain't heard nothing. She knows what her country is trying to do, she just can't accept it.

  • -5

    bannedacctsam

    When Allan Simpson (former Senator and half of the influential SIMPSON BOWLES debt reduction commission) was asked about the potential confrontation between US and China he jokingly said that ** Realistically the US would need to ask money from China to fund the war before going to war**.

    Abe and the Japanese need to understand the realities of the current state of politics, industry relationships with China, demographics, and debt & economic situation in the US before assuming that Obama will send in the Marines against the Chinese Mainland over the Senkanu Islands.

  • -4

    Jay Que

    "PRC must stop being a communist 1-party dictatorship dictatorship" says Panetta. Reply: "Du-ohh kay, yes sir!", says the helpful tyrant.

  • -9

    BertieWooster

    TigerInThe_Hermitage-san,

    China might have aggresive gestures but thats so minor compared to going into Iraq uninvited.

    Or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, etc., etc.

  • -9

    BertieWooster

    bannedacctsam-san,

    Realistically the US would need to ask money from China to fund the war before going to war

    Love it!

    That's probably why they want Japan to do it instead of them!

  • -7

    smithinjapan

    Patick Smash: "China needs to cool down and show similar maturity, even though Japanese actions in changing the staus quo of the islands (thanks Ishihara) and threats to shoot at Chinese planes and vesseals are partly to blame for the current tensions."

    Exactly, exactly, exactly! Thank you. While China is definitely being the most direct in terms of provocation, there is plenty that Japan is doing to bring about such tit-for-tat actions both here and with other nations 'surrounding' China. They NEED each other to move forward, not to be stupid with one another.

    Samurai Blue: "First and last Senkaku is Japan's sovereign territory and PRC is required to fall back, end of story."

    And yet you say that about Dokdo and The Kuriles and people like yourself claim the same reasons Japan claims the Senkakus are suddenly 'different' or 'irrelevant' in the cases of the other disputes. It's always amusing to watch right-wingers here explode when you point out that SKorea says the EXACT same thing about Dokdo as you just said about the Senkaku islands, (with Japan changed to SK and the PRC changed to Japan).

  • 7

    Newsman

    @BW: What is wrong with asking countries to peaceably resolve their conflicts? Would you prefer Panetta to say "We think it's OK for any country in East Asia to threaten its neighbors as much as it likes"?

  • 7

    KariHaruka

    Because if your interest is in a Pacific region that can be peaceful and that can prosper in the future, you have to be part of that,” Panetta said.

    The only thing that is in China's interest is land grabbing from other countries by bullying.

  • 6

    Sentiments

    Denying a dispute on sovereign territory is a political card Japan cant afford to give up, until the second or third round of (possible future) negotiations. Giving it up now would be giving up the political game to China and play strait into their hand. Regardless of Abes right-isch opinions hes balancing pretty nicely as he must do if he wants a future for Japan. Dont forget that you are much better informed (for obvious reasons) on Japanese politics than you are on the Chinese political agenda. Its easy to have an opinion about Abes actions but exactly what are the Chinese doing (or more correctly what information do we have)?

  • -5

    highball7

    I read the full transcript of what Panetta said, its beyond disappointing. Another nonchalant statement that states the obvious.

    Peace, stability for the region? No Sheeet, Sherlock. Of course everyone wants that. How about proposing something that will help alleviate the tensions? Anything?

  • -8

    nalunui05

    Why does the USA have to get involved in China and Japan's beef? For once, stay out of it. Let's see how these two countries handle their own conflict.

  • 5

    Newsman

    Why are we involved? Well, we have defense arrangements with Japan, and it is in both our interest and our friends' interest not to let disputes get out of hand. Should we instead just sit back and let things continue on their own course until Japan suddenly clamors for full-bore military intervention?

  • -3

    bannedacctsam

    Let me blunt, Abe is out of his mind if he thinks that the American public will support a war against China over the Senkaku islands.

    A war with China will surely lead to-

    The loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of American servicemens' lives The loss of billions of dollars from American investments and business activity in China Economic disruption that will lead to an US recession Disruption of social services as result of the inability to borrow money Devaluation of the dollar

    America will advocate for a peaceful solution between Japan and China - a military option is off the table. The only way that the US will get involved militarily is the Chinese physically attack the US mainland.

  • -5

    nalunui05

    America has it's hands full. All they need now is to fight someone else's battles. It's obvious they're both itching to start something. I still say don't get involved. China and Japan should find ways for a peaceful resolution. Whatever happens, happens. We didn't do it.

  • -3

    Flyfalcon

    Cabadaje

    Really? Panetta tried to back off his host without losing face. He kissed PRC bosses instead of tough words in 2012. His current words are also soft like Jelly. In fact he tried not to offend his bankers. Pls refer to his speech for all of host nations. He used to change his stand for different audience. US did not consider about losing face to Taiwan when they changed their stand for PRC. It has showed true color for jumping other fence.

    Secretary of states and defense secretary were too soft on PRC. The main reason of softening to PRC was they understood that his salary come from PRC finance. They will change their face Kabuki dancers depending on the show. Money talk! Power soft!

  • 0

    hkitagawa

    If Chinese exports were reduced. That mean more job back to all the countries but if Chinese is reducing dollar assets, the news is not good. Something fish is happening behind.

  • 0

    Newsman

    "China and Japan should find ways for a peaceful solution" and "Whatever happens, happens" don't really work together in a coherent policy. I would suggest instead "China and Japan should find ways for a peaceful solution, and the U.S., and other neighbors in East Asia, should actively encourage China and Japan to find that peaceful solution."

  • 6

    cabadaje

    Really?

    Yep.

    Panetta tried to back off his host without losing face.

    Not...really sure what you are saying here...

    He kissed PRC bosses instead of tough words in 2012.

    Pretty much. I can sort of understand why, but I am not sure if tougher talk would have had the same effect tough talk will have today. In all cases, hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame Panetta for not being clairvoyant.

    His current words are also soft like Jelly.

    But also strong like bear! Oh, wait, that's the Russians, never mind...Anyhow, no, his words were not soft like jelly. Do you mean he didn't rant and scream and threaten? No, he did not. Threats of violence are not what make words strong. The strength of one's words are in the clarity and the confidence of the statement. Telling the snarling tiger that he can no longer snarl at everyone, and that he cannot join the table if he continues to act that way, is a strong statement.

    In fact he tried not to offend his bankers.

    I imagine so. Additionally, I suspect many of his conversations involve trying not to offend the people he talks to, much like everyone else. What possible advantage could he have gotten from offending the Chinese?

    Pls refer to his speech for all of host nations. He used to change his stand for different audience.

    Yes, he is an excellent presenter. Many of my students are quiet vexed when I tell them they have to create a different presentation of the same subject for different audiences if they want to have the best effect.

    US did not consider about losing face to Taiwan when they changed their stand for PRC. It has showed true color for jumping other fence.

    True. Well, at least 70 years ago. America finishing up WWII was certainly a different culture than the America we know today. 70 years of global responsibilities do tend to have a maturing effect.

    Secretary of states and defense secretary were too soft on PRC.

    Can you think of anything he could have said that would not be interpreted as a direct and imminent threat of violence to China?

    The main reason of softening to PRC was they understood that his salary come from PRC finance. They will change their face Kabuki dancers depending on the show. Money talk! Power soft!

    The main reason Panetta spoke as hard as he did was in a last-ditch effort to prevent military conflict. Unfortunately, I do not think that China is going to be able to back down from this (even though, ironically, backing down is the solution that would bring China the greatest benefits, both politically and economically).

    I fear that military conflict is almost inevitable at this point, although I dearly hope that I am mistaken. This is not to say that war will break out, rather that China will continue to escalate, this time at the military level, until a final solution is found. In other words, China will fire on a Japanese craft, and a Chinese craft will be downed in response. The US and Japanese approach is always to escalate to the level chosen by the opponent. If they just have single ship-on-ship blows, that is all the US will respond with. My fear is that China will continue escalating, and my greater fear is that China does not share the fear of nuclear war that both the US and Japan has earned.

  • -3

    neobios

    The Pentagon chief said he has appealed to his counterparts in Beijing to negotiate regional agreements to defuse an array of disagreements over maritime territory.

    Abe has said a few times "there is no room for negotiation", what kind of negotiation is he talking about?

  • 2

    issa1

    If the china go to war with the United States that will be a good reason for Americans not paying the titles of the U.S. debt. We must never forget that wars are motivated by economic interest.

  • 4

    cabadaje

    Abe has said a few times "there is no room for negotiation", what kind of negotiation is he talking about?

    It's what Americans would call a "Return to Normalcy". Japan is willing to discuss trading, investments, fishing rights, resources all that good stuff, everything that was what passed for normal before being damaged by this brouhaha. Basically, he is willing to work with China to repair the damage that has been done. However, the islands are not on the table. If there was no agreement before, there will be no agreement now.

    To go back to my neighborhood example, if the disagreement between my neighbor and I over the rosebush between the two houses spills over and starts to affect our wives, children, the rest of the neighborhood, my lawn (from everyone trampling over it), his reputation is a scout leader, whatever, then I can offer to talk to him, to help fix all these broken things and get our lives back to normal. However, part of that is not talking about the rose bush. It was arguing about the rose bush that started all this mess in the first place, and frankly, it wasn't worth it. By the time we get everything back to how it used to be, then, if we want to, we talk about the rose bush again.

    This time, however, I will bet you that we won't be so eager to create so many problems for ourselves over it.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    smithinjapanFeb. 07, 2013 - 06:22PM JST The most important part of Panetta's statement is this: “One country or the other could react in a way that could create >an even greater crisis.” He realizes it's not a one-way street, either to war or towards peace and prosperity, and that both countries must work >together to achieve it. The only question about peaceful dialogue I have is what that dialogue would be given that Japan says there is no >dispute and it's a non-issue. What are they going to talk about in terms of the islands?

    No smith, the most significant part is: "It cannot be a China that threatens, you know, to go after their territories and create territorial disputes.” China cannot play this what's mine is mine and let's negotiate what's yours game. I do admire your tenacity in maintaining your anti-Japan agenda even in the face of a clear-cut article such as this in which Japan is not he primary subject.

  • -7

    bao.2ye

    Panetta's statement looks funny. How many people, lived in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, were killed by US military? millions...... Who is the world No 1 threat of peace? Obviously, it is the United States.

  • 0

    bannedacctsam

    This Article left an important point - Panetta will be leaving his post as the SECDEF . Moreover the SECDEF doesn't not make foreign policy decisions - He only advises the President.

    When asked about China during the presidential campaign, Obama said that China is America's RIVAL as well as PARTNER.

    Abe and his right wing cronies need stop the drum beat of war and get back to the negotiation table with China to seek a peaceful resolution.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    bannedacctsamFeb. 07, 2013 - 11:32PM JST This Article left an important point - Panetta will be leaving his post as the SECDEF . Moreover the SECDEF doesn't >not make foreign policy decisions - He only advises the President. When asked about China during the presidential campaign, Obama said that China is America's RIVAL as well as PARTNER.

    Actually he said that China could be a partner if they played by the rules. Furthermore he was addressing the economic relationship not the strategic one although the same would apply there as well. But we all know now that China isn't interested in playing by the rules.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    TO: PRC

    1)You need to stop the maritime threats in Asia and Japan.

    2) You need to stop cyberwar immediately.

    We are getting over 1000 cyber attacks DAILY from China.

    PRC, your behaviors for the above are not acceptable in the world. You are not playing a world rule. We have given you enough serious warnings in the past, but you have just ignored them. If you do not want these negative consequencres, you better pay attention. We can send you back to old China where you used to be. Enough is enough. We mean business this time.

    February 06, 2013

    Obama's preemptive cyber attack disclosure a warning to China

    http://images.infoworld.com/d/security/obamas-preemptive-cyber-attack-disclosure-warning-china-212371?source=rss_security

  • -3

    25psot

    I think Panetta make some point, the island not worth to risk bigger tension or worse and I thing giving this Island and surrounding water permanent status of biological sanctuary protected by some international laws would be more beneficial and useful approach.

  • -4

    globallc

    USA betrayed the terms specified in Japanese unconditional surrender, and unilaterally handed China territory to the defeated Japan as appeasement in order to make Japan as a tool for it to exercise imperialist hegemony over Asia with agreed to military base in Japan. Now USA is running around Asia in its evil intention to create fracas and rivalry amongst Asian nations and uses Asian nations for its fear of losing world hegemony by rival China.

    China knows territory disputes and historical bickering are hard to resolve, therefore it took a pragmatic approach to deal with those difficult issues, Deng Xiaoping proposed to shelve the disputes and co-develop the disputed areas with claimants in 1978.

    Yet China conciliatory approach is taken by the claimants as weakness, with the predatory imperialist USA backing all of them embarked on encroaching China territories aggressively with armed forces and cold war style propaganda.

    The game is on. The question is: who will benefit the most? Japan, China or the world warmonger, USA?

    It is a 'no win' for Japan even if the case will be heard at the ICJ. If ICJ judges that grabbing territory as war loot is acceptable, then similar judgement will go against Japan for its claims on Takeshima Islands/Dokdo and Northern Territories/Kurile Islands against South Korea and Russia.

    Let's also not forget that China is the biggest market for Japan in Asia and growing. Use your brain and not your emotion.

    .

  • -5

    bao.2ye

    US loves to see the conflicts between China and Japan.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    No bao, the U.S. like every other sane normal country loves to see peace and stability and all of it's strategic positions and alliances are designed to ensure that. It also has an agenda of spreading democracy, since democratic nations generally don't start wars with each other. You can see why China is in a collision with the United States.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    Is China really prepared to start WWIII against the whole world?

    " Fighter jets from the U.S. and two key allies roared into western Pacific skies Thursday in the combat phase of annual exercises that have gained importance as the region responds to the rise of China and other potential threats."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568130/u.s-war-games-with-japan-australia-in-show-of-force-to-rising-china/

  • 3

    Newsman

    @globallc: It's been so long since I've read such an entertaining post with such a remarkable sense of humor. The USA unilaterally handed "China territory" to the defeated Japan? I must have overlooked that, what with Japan having to return all of Manchuria, Nanjing, Shanghai, the Yangzi river basin and the entire rest of the country to China. The U.S. is using Asian nations? From what I can tell, Asian nations are asking the U.S. to get more involved in East Asia, not less -- that's why Myanmar wants a closer relationship with the U.S., not to mention Vietnam and the Philippines. China has a "conciliatory approach"? My, how conciliatory a radar lock can be (I had no idea!)

    China is the biggest market for Japan and growing -- that's true. So why would it want to do all of the saber-rattling when it could be a lot more welcome and persuasive without it? Seems to me the ideologues in the PLA are champing at the bit to prove their worth. Would that someone in the PRC had the authority to tell them to cool it.

  • 0

    PnoyMafia7thFLT

    It's a way of telling China to grow up! And quit it's foolishness.

    We all know that war will happen, it just a matter of time. Prc will strike first, enmasse. Capt. Carabao peftok batallion Korean peninsula-Langley Va

  • 0

    Xeno23

    Panetta is not a naive schoolboy; one may argue he's a schoolboy - as one may argue everyone involved is a schoolboy, but he's not one that doesn't know how to play these schoolboy games. So here's a question: would the USA hand shake with China in a back room deal over this if China exercised more control over North Korea? Just asking... anyone here play the game "Diplomacy"?

  • 2

    Alex Roncelli

    It's Japan's land. China has enough land. How can they make claims like that when they don't take care of the land that they already have?

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    TO PRC

    As I posted above, if thje PRC is not willing to play a world rule, we, the rest of world, will get together and kick you out from the UN Security Concil.

  • 1

    Konsta

    Nobody of the UN Security Council deserves a seat. What a silly criterium. The seats are occupied by countries that have general influence on the world politics in terms of security. Bad or not, when China will have a visible impact on the world's security, it will have a seat. So far, it does not.

  • 0

    Mark Bradley

    The people not their governments need to express to each other that they have little control over their righteous governments and their military. If there was a survey given to the people of all countries involved with a question like "Would you die or kill for _____ island?" and "would you like to start a war?" then it would be obvious no one wants what the top is pushing.

  • 0

    Tamarama

    While China is definitely being the most direct in terms of provocation, there is plenty that Japan is doing to bring about such tit-for-tat actions both here and with other nations 'surrounding' China.

    By purchasing these islands from private citizens and preventing them from getting in the hands of yer man Ishihara, the Japanese government are actually free now to negotiate without ties on an official level.

    But China's belligerence is backing them into a corner, because if Japan hands these island over now, it will look as though they caved in to the bully - that they are frightened. And you can rest assured that that is absolutely the way the state media in China will report it to the people. They feast on that kind of thing. The Japanese simply can't do that.

    China needs to back right off, let it calm right down, ensure that no boats or planes go near the islands for possibly several years, be very nice and diplomatic to their close neighbors in the interim, and THEN see if they can start a dialogue.

  • 2

    Alejandro Dela Cruz

    China has always been making bold moves these days, ignoring US of every warning.

    I think the next thing i would hear is that US launched nuke to China. Well, not that i'm making assumptions, but China has grown arrogant to have the guts to insult the US government and ignore their warnings these days, China's downfall is not controlled by anyone but themselves, China is actually digging their own graves. Provoking neighbors, threatening allies with the nuke technology. sigh as much as i don't want to see war, China is gonna start it soon. Why? definitely because if they wont, they can't expand. And every money they spent on their drills will go to nothing, that's a really bad backlash isn't it?

    Just hearing/reading the news everyday in the internet since when the stand off with the PH, China shows no backing down, this time we are actually seeing the patience of the U.S. fact is, US is like the General in the UN, if China wont go to UN and resort to force, that would give US a reason to join into a tug of war of who has to hold a territory even how little it is. US could get more to China if they win this war anyway (debt, natural resources, land and man power perhaps? lol). So, keep digging your own graves China, the entire world is looking at you.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    cabadaje Feb. 07, 2013 - 09:33PM JST

    Panetta tried to back off his host without losing face.

    Not...really sure what you are saying here...

    Pls refer to your old post Feb. 07, 2013 - 04:41PM JST. It was a first sentence was from your post. I have no idea why can't you recall your own post.

    What possible advantage could he have gotten from offending the Chinese?

    Money talk! Defense secetary can be bought with money too. Who knows Panetta has been brided by PRC or not! Sadly US foreign policy is no longer indepedent. Bankers can influence their policies. Both Japan and China are bidding him as aution. When the price is right, he can change his stand easily. Even congress is heavily influenced by wealthy American Chinese as Jewish lobby group.

    Yes, he is an excellent presenter. Many of my students are quiet vexed when I tell them they have to create a different presentation of the same subject for different audiences if they want to have the best effect.

    Defense secretary job is different from tutoring to students. Panetta can not make wrong impression for pleasing the target audience. No wonder it is getting messy and chaotic. Thousand miles started from one step. If that first step went to wrong direction, he has to walk back thousand miles again. It is more likely schoold kid making the presentation without analytical thinking. He has failed not only to his nation, he made wrong impression to the conflicted parties and the whole region. It is a disappontment.

    Can you think of anything he could have said that would not be interpreted as a direct and imminent threat of violence to China?

    Of course! There were many dramas of ships between J & C since 2008. US has been quiet for so long. Their threat is more likely horse whisper. It was no longer Regan era who was very touch and confrontational with evil nation as he described. In fact US is no longer standing freely. It is losing posture and correct balance. Even current words are hard to interpret as threat. It is softer than Jelly.

    I fear that military conflict is almost inevitable at this point, although I dearly hope that I am mistaken. This is not to say that war will break out, rather that China will continue to escalate, this time at the military level, until a final solution is found.-----------------

    Sadly US has never made their intention cystal clear. The mess is their own doing with many back room deals with J politicians. PRC alone is beatable for US. Only of 40 war heads can be reached to US shores. However the problem of that conflict is North Korea and Russia are adjacent to PRC geographically. The worst case scenario will be not only between J & C. It will become regional wars between S & N Korea too. Will Russia be netural for that conflict? I pray for Russia not to involve. However we are not Gods. Who knows What will happen? Things will be out of control and WWIII will start rather than minor regional war.

    US is responsible for not making touch enough with conflicting nations. It has failed as Policeman duty.

  • -6

    smithinjapan

    OssanAmerica: "China cannot play this what's mine is mine and let's negotiate what's yours game"

    Change 'China' to 'Japan' and you're bang on. Abe and Japan Inc. want to negotiate with China because of the loss of billions in exports to their number one trading partner, but have stated flat-out that there is 'no issue' with the Senkaku/Daiyou islands and it's theirs -- so no, they cannot play the "what's mine is mine and let's negotiate" game at all. It's amazing you cannot see your own double standards and you play so obviously into my hands when I argue that they are both responsible for improving things, and both equally stupid in their rhetoric and actions over the islands. Thanks for agreeing with me, Ossan.

  • 2

    cabadaje

    @Flyfalcon

    Pls refer to your old post Feb. 07, 2013 - 04:41PM JST. It was a first sentence was from your post. I have no idea why can't you recall your own post.

    I can recall my own post just fine. Since my post was much clearer than your post, which could be taken to mean the exact opposite of mine, I stated that I did not understand what you were saying. Since you were not able to clarify it without using my post as an example and have chosen to pretend that the problem was with myself instead of with your powers of communication, I will simply assume that you have difficulties with English and go from there.

    Money talk! Defense secetary can be bought with money too. Who knows Panetta has been brided by PRC or not! Sadly US foreign policy is no longer indepedent. Bankers can influence their policies. Both Japan and China are bidding him as aution. When the price is right, he can change his stand easily. Even congress is heavily influenced by wealthy American Chinese as Jewish lobby group.

    So, in other words, you are not able to tell us what Panneta would have gained by insulting the Chinese.

    Defense secretary job is different from tutoring to students.

    Of course. That is why I can use him as an example on how to properly present information. What in my comment would lead you to think that I was comparing the job of the US Defense Secretary to that of a Global Marketing teacher? If I told you that I use Steve Jobs as an example as well, would you assume that I believe being the CEO of a major electronics company was the same as tutoring students?

    Panetta can not make wrong impression for pleasing the target audience. No wonder it is getting messy and chaotic. Thousand miles started from one step. If that first step went to wrong direction, he has to walk back thousand miles again. It is more likely schoold kid making the presentation without analytical thinking. He has failed not only to his nation, he made wrong impression to the conflicted parties and the whole region. It is a disappontment.

    I see it one of two ways: Either Panetta failed to be clear and, by astounding coincidence, the Chinese PR machine just happened to randomly choose each specific point he made when they announced through the media that the points weren't actually sincere or that China would deliberately ignore them...

    Or, China got the message loud and clear, and chose to double-down instead of capitulate, picking each point Panetta made and deliberately telling everyone that they had no intention of abiding by them.

    You can decide which to believe. Me, in my humble opinion (Humble? Hah! Who am I kidding?), I will go with the opinion that the Chinese are not mentally deficient, that they understood full-well what they were being told, and deliberately decided that they would not heed the warning. Why they decided that is a different question altogether, but that they understood the decision they were making is difficult to dispute without making the Chinese sound like idiots.

    Of course! There were many dramas of ships between J & C since 2008. US has been quiet for so long. Their threat is more likely horse whisper. It was no longer Regan era who was very touch and confrontational with evil nation as he described. In fact US is no longer standing freely. It is losing posture and correct balance. Even current words are hard to interpret as threat. It is softer than Jelly.

    So, in other words, you are not able to give us an example of what he could have said that would not have been taken as a direct and imminent threat of violence by the Chinese.

    For someone not saying much of anything, you sure do take a lot of space to do so. And considering who just pointed that out to you, that's saying quite a bit.

    Sadly US has never made their intention cystal clear.

    So, to you, the US position that we will defend the islands under the treaty we have with Japan, is a total shock? That it was explicitly stated, verbatim, on numerous occasions, even prior to the current silliness, wasn't crystal clear?

    The mess is their own doing with many back room deals with J politicians.

    It sounds less like you actually have a case, and more like you are just grabbing for any excuse to blame the US for this. A little bit like China's previous assertion that as long as China can contain the US, Japan will stop fighting back (which, to be frank, is not exactly a claim that makes one want to trust China any more).

  • 3

    cabadaje

    PRC alone is beatable for US. Only of 40 war heads can be reached to US shores. However the problem of that conflict is North Korea and Russia are adjacent to PRC geographically. The worst case scenario will be not only between J & C. It will become regional wars between S & N Korea too. Will Russia be netural for that conflict? I pray for Russia not to involve. However we are not Gods. Who knows What will happen? Things will be out of control and WWIII will start rather than minor regional war.

    Hmm...I have a different opinion on the matter. For starters, the US has absolutely no reason to go to mainland China, and plenty of reasons not to. If any Chinese crafts attempt to engage over the South China Seas, it will be relatively easy for the US to knock them out of the sky. China's mainland defense strategy is focused around area access denial, which would be a problem if we tried to access the area, but again, we don't need to, and we don't want to (we've re-built enough countries after beating them in wars; It's getting to the point where they're like homeless people who break a store window just so they can get arrested and get food and place to sleep for the night). The mission of the US is not to attack China, but rather to protect Japan, and to do that, all we have to do is knock the attackers from the sky (or out of the water). Same thing with Russia. They don't have to attack China. All they have to do is knock any foreign aircraft out of their skies, well within their purview as an independent nation, well within their rights to do without getting dragged into a war.

    This is not to say that China won't have anything to do for its ground troops. One does not threaten the entire region and then expect them to hold back when they spot a weakness. The moment China's enemies spot a distraction, they will likely mount an offensive to attempt to get their land back. But they hardly need encouragement from the US to do that. China gave them all the encouragement they need.

    There is, unfortunately, one scenario in which the US would invade mainland China. Should China attempt a nuclear attack of any kind, the US and its allied countries (including Russia), would immediately take steps to remove the existing government and military. One can almost excuse things like locking on to ships as warnings as simple naivete, but when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, there is no joking around. It is serious to the point that countries are even willing to overlook an illegal war and invasion of a country that might have had them (barring, y'know, actual evidence), simply because that country had already shown the willingness to use them on civilians. China, a country that cannot seem to see any proportional difference between giving someone a verbal warning and locking on a radar weapon system onto them, or which mentions thermonuclear warfare in the same sentence as shooting an anti-ship missile into a JSDF ship, is on the short list of reluctantly trusted countries with WMD. In the event that we even suspect nuclear weapons of being deployed, that will be the only reason that China would experience a mainland invasion. The rest of the modern civilized world has absolutely zero tolerance for nuclear weapons.

    US is responsible for not making touch enough with conflicting nations. It has failed as Policeman duty.

    Being a policeman sucks. People hate you for telling them what to do, people blame you for not doing what you tell them to do, people complain if you try to force them to do it, and call you a failure for not forcing them to do it. It's as bad as being a parent to a bunch of Rebel Without A Cause teenagers. Is it any wonder that the US is trying to establish stability in this region? We would be more than happy to retire from policing, as long as we were sure these damn kids wouldn't start knifing each other over who owns the malt shop.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    cabaje

    I can recall my own post just fine. Since my post was much clearer than your post, which could be taken to mean the exact opposite of mine,

    Really! It was your first sentence from FEB. 07, 2013 - 04:41PM JST

    He was trying to give China a chance to back off without losing face.

    It was from my first reply to your post.

    Really? Panetta tried to back off his host without losing face.

    I replaced Panetta as He. I replaced his host as China. Is there any big change or deception?

    Since you were not able to clarify it without using my post as an example and have chosen to pretend that the problem was with myself instead of with your powers of communication

    *The problem is you has never read other post carefully. You rushed to conclude with your natural instinct. Sound like heated debate without reference for own post. That sentence was crystal clear.

    I may be not great communicator. However I read your entire post carefully. I agree I am inferior than you. However I wish you pay more attention without rushing to reply. We are not debating in the congress. There are no need to rush or emotional.

    So, in other words, you are not able to tell us what Panneta would have gained by insulting the Chinese.

    Defense secretary job is not pleasing or insulting the Chinese or his host. However he has made wrong impression for PRC for US will be neutral for that issue. Another mistake was he pleased other side for making more noise without the concern of consequence.

    Steve Jobs as an example as well, would you assume that I believe being the CEO of a major electronics company was the same as tutoring students?

    Steve Jobs is marketing for selling Apple products. Panetta is not intending to sell US products. He has to inform the host nations about US foreign policy and DEALING WITH THE CONFLICTS. I am not convinced that Defense secretary is responsible for marketing. He is a representative of US government. His words are reflecting the US foreign policy.

    There is, unfortunately, one scenario in which the US would invade mainland China. Should China attempt a nuclear attack of any kind---------

    It is too long, too ideological and too magical. Whether your nuclear thesis for possible conflict is accurate or not is questionable. Once again we are not Fortune tellers for predicting the future. Most of your post may be true for perfect world. However it is questionable in the real world. I will not judge or predict the worst case scenario. I just wish the whole region will be able to avoid the worst case scenario. In fact we are powerless for that case.

    However I will not pretend I have impression on Defense secretary. If you ask US citizens many will share my opinion too. Roanald Regan will embarrass about current circumstance if he is still alive.

  • -3

    BertieWooster

    China wants to discuss the Senkaku situation.

    Japan says there is nothing to discuss 'cos the islands are theirs - end of story.

    Who is being the more childish?

  • 4

    cabadaje

    Who is being the more childish?

    The ones who refuse to talk about anything at all except the islands, even if it means going to war.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    BertieWooster: "Japan says there is nothing to discuss 'cos the islands are theirs - end of story."

    Japan, given that when the tables are turned they bleat the opposite of what they do with the Senkaku/Daiyou islands, and given that China has said they are willing to meet half way but Japan is, as the article and other articles state, fiercely denying there is any issue. So there's your answer, if the question need be posed as such. I would say both are being equally childish, but Japan is doing a better job of hiding it by hiding behind the US.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    smithinjapanFeb. 07, 2013 - 06:22PM JST

    The most important part of Panetta's statement is this: “One country or the other could react in a way that could create an even greater crisis.”

    He realizes it's not a one-way street, either to war or towards peace and prosperity, and that both countries must work together to achieve it.

    The only question about peaceful dialogue I have is what that dialogue would be given that Japan says there is no dispute and it's a non-issue. What are they going to talk about in terms of the islands?

    It is a myth that two to tango. It can start from one side. I just do not see any peaceful dialogue. Both want the same black rock in the ocean for oil.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Smith.

    "China has said they are willing to meet half way". <-----proof please.

    Also, I wonder why you fail to use your infamous "analogy" in this. For instance, if JMSDF started to increase her presence in Sea of Japan near the Takeshima area for consecutive days with encroachment of vessels near the territorial waters every day along with a few incidents of Japanese vessels radar licking the Korean counterparts, would you then say, "both are being equally selfish"??? And btw, Japan did meet half way by asking to settle this manner via I CJ.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Flyfalcon

    Really!

    Yep.

    I replaced Panetta as He. I replaced his host as China. Is there any big change or deception?

    No deception, but yes, because of the English, it could be interpreted to mean that either Panetta was trying to back off from his host, or that he was trying to make his host back off. The lack of clarity could have indicated a big change or none at all.

    The problem is you has never read other post carefully. You rushed to conclude with your natural instinct.

    I read it quite carefully. Several times. And, ultimately, I came to my conclusion based on my intellectual analysis (my monkey brain doesn't have the patience for that sort of thing) which was: I didn't understand what you were saying.

    Don't worry about it. It was just a grammar thing. English grammar's a b!tch. There are so many words from other languages and so many exceptions to rules that there's no way any one set will always be clear to everyone.

    That's why we discuss. To clarify.

    I agree I am inferior than you.

    Okay...perhaps "junior" would be a better word. "Inferior" has implications beyond just a lack of experience or skill set. It's not a good word to use for yourself.

    Defense secretary job is not pleasing or insulting the Chinese or his host. However he has made wrong impression for PRC for US will be neutral for that issue. Another mistake was he pleased other side for making more noise without the concern of consequence.

    I have to disagree with that. If the PRC concluded that the US defending the islands was a neutral stance, there is little more that can be done. And while it may not be in the job description, you don't get to be in the upper level of politics without understanding some basic political etiquette. One piece of this etiquette is "Don't offend the host unless the offense is specifically designed to provoke a specific reaction"

    Steve Jobs is marketing for selling Apple products. Panetta is not intending to sell US products.

    Okay, again we seem to be having a communication issue. In the same way that I was not comparing the US Defense Secretary to a teacher, I am not comparing the CEO of an electronics corporation to the US Defense Secretary.

    He has to inform the host nations about US foreign policy and DEALING WITH THE CONFLICTS. I am not convinced that Defense secretary is responsible for marketing. He is a representative of US government. His words are reflecting the US foreign policy.

    Politics is pretty much Marketing and Negotiation taken to its extreme level. You can't represent anything effectively if you can't market it, and you can't deal with any sort of conflict if you can't negotiate effectively.

    It is too long, too ideological and too magical.

    Hmm...so it's too long to read...but you are okay with concluding that it must be ideological, and...magical?

    Which part was the magical one, the part with missiles hitting the ships, or the part about using a blockade strategy to minimize casualties?

    Whether your nuclear thesis for possible conflict is accurate or not is questionable.

    Debatable, I would say, but I generally agree that it isn't a certainty.

    Once again we are not Fortune tellers for predicting the future. Most of your post may be true for perfect world.

    You...have a curious definition of "perfect world".

    However it is questionable in the real world.

    Sure. That's why we can talk about it in a discussion forum.

    I will not judge or predict the worst case scenario. I just wish the whole region will be able to avoid the worst case scenario. In fact we are powerless for that case.

    True, when all is said and done, we are all speculators.

    However I will not pretend I have impression on Defense secretary. If you ask US citizens many will share my opinion too. Roanald Regan will embarrass about current circumstance if he is still alive.

    I'm sure many would. Then again, many Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth, and that creationism is a scientific theory.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    cabadaje Feb. 08, 2013 - 02:23PM JST

    Okay...perhaps "junior" would be a better word. "Inferior" has implications beyond just a lack of experience or skill set. It's not a good word to use for yourself.

    No Sir! Junior is very welcoming words. I was born in 1950. It is More likely you are junior according our generation gap. Due to generation gap, we have different belief, idea and analytical thinking.

    According Late Bruce Lee philosophy, your truth is yours. Not mine.

    No offense! your post is more likely academic tutorial instead of simplified and clear like BertieWooster. I prefer his straight forwardness. It is very plain English. After all I am not doing a post graduate course here.

    Thanks for your long debate. I have no luxury for endless debate with you. We have to agree for disagreeing Panetta has done the good job or bad job. In my living memory, he is the most incompetent defense secretary.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    There is an excellent analysis of the situation here:

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Lionel-Fatton/3893

    It's a bit long, but very informative.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    It is More likely you are junior according our generation gap. Due to generation gap, we have different belief, idea and analytical thinking.

    I agree. For instance, I would not even consider physical age as a factor when determining senior/junior rankings; physical age, of course, not to be confused with classroom/field experience.

    According Late Bruce Lee philosophy, your truth is yours. Not mine.

    Yeah, I'm not a big fan of philosophy. I can't really find any practical value in it. I don't even believe in "truth" as a philosophical concept. I tend to stick with behavior. People say a lot of things, and people think a lot of things, but people's behavior tends to be the most reliable way of determining their future actions.

    No offense! your post is more likely academic tutorial instead of simplified and clear like BertieWooster. I prefer his straight forwardness. It is very plain English. After all I am not doing a post graduate course here.

    No offense taken at all. In all honesty, I am happy that you do see an academic bent (I am, after all, an academic).

    The only part I do wince at, is the subtext that: How correct or reasonable a position is doesn't weigh as heavily compared to how simplistically it is said. Which worries me, because that is precisely what I am claiming that China is doing (Flyfalcon, please feel free to tune me out, as I am going into academic mode again).

    China is going for the intellectually simplest argument. Unfortunately, the simplest argument is also the most limited. Take some of the more dedicated posters here, for instance. You can go back pages and pages and you won't find them budging an inch in their position. Indeed, in all likelihood they will categorically state that they have no need to compromise with any of their beliefs, because no one has yet shown them to be wrong.

    But there's the corner China has painted itself into. Just like these posters, they have wagered all their beliefs on the same pillar. Anytime they are challenged, they are forced to double-down or admit failure of the whole. They have put themselves in a position where they are unable to separate their actions, and thus end up doing things that sound sillier and sillier the further they go. You end up with people who are forced to judge as equal such disproportionate concepts as a verbal threat and military weapon system lock-on, or a missile attack on a ship and a thermonuclear attack on Tokyo. This isn't a political thing, it's a human thing, and it manifests itself at all stages.

    The economy is hurting, trade is hurting, relationships are hurting, trust is at an all time low, and the threat of conflict looms very near on the horizon. Over what? The islands? No, there is a way back, and that way is discussion. Since the islands are what lend to all of these non-island related problems, we can discuss the individual problems, fix what we can, return to normal what we can't, and when everything is like it used to be, then, if the islands are still an issue, we can discuss the islands again, this time with the added experience of how foolishly we behaved before.

    However, that requires discussion of things we can agree on. If people focus solely on what we can't agree on, the fixable problems will get worse and worse. Eventually, even solving the original problem will result in nothing gained (particularly when the original problem is so freaking insignificant in and of itself).

    If people are stuck thinking "If Abe won't negotiate on the islands, then there can be no negotiation at all", they will miss the opportunity to discuss, fix, and maybe even improve, the environment as a whole, economic, political, and environmental. Discussion...any discussion, and agreement on anything, even things that feel inconsequential, is far far better than refusing to talk at all. No talk means no communication, and a lack of communication has never led to anything good.

  • -1

    Nathaw

    Cabadaje

    According your post, you generalized that PRC using scape goat for the territory dispute as nationalism and escaping from domestic problem. They have insecurity about weaker economy, social instability and their own failures blah blah.

    Fly falcon mentioned his communication skills is weaker however he did not mention anything about China failure. He mentioned Panetta and US foreign policy failure. Therefore your post deceived that other honesty. PRC economic reform was kicked started in 1978. No nation on that earth has sustained their growth for more than 3 decades. They have problems such as corruption, gap between Rich and poor, pollution and weaker growth. In fact they have no ideology like self proclaiming academic. PRC problem is acute not chronic like Japan and US.

    Academic thinking does not work for dealing with the conflict.

    The longer they talk, the more exposed poisonous view of other. They will manipulate other honesty for promoting their political agenda and bias. All of your post mentioned little about Panetta and US foreign policy. It is debatable whether you are on topic. Sending endless debate without structured philosophy or fair research is another propaganda machine. It is irrelevant to Panetta speech.

    People pretended they are experts of PRC. Some of then have never been there before. Their mind is cloudy with bias, negative thinking and superior mentality. I am more impressed about honest and open posters.

  • 0

    Nathaw

    Real world is not academic class room. It is unpredictable and unreliable. Academic thinking for economy, social stability, tension between neighbors are magical wand from fairly tale.

  • 2

    cabadaje

    According your post, you generalized that PRC using scape goat for the territory dispute as nationalism and escaping from domestic problem. They have insecurity about weaker economy, social instability and their own failures blah blah.

    Hmm...no.

    Fly falcon mentioned his communication skills is weaker however he did not mention anything about China failure. He mentioned Panetta and US foreign policy failure. Therefore your post deceived that other honesty.

    Disagreement isn't considered dishonesty.

    Academic thinking does not work for dealing with the conflict.

    For instance, I disagree with this. That doesn't mean either you or I are being dishonest.

    The longer they talk, the more exposed poisonous view of other.

    That's fine. Even if you do not achieve resolution, then at least it exposes the poisonous political agenda and bias of the opponent.

    All of your post mentioned little about Panetta and US foreign policy. It is debatable whether you are on topic.

    I suspect you have me confused with someone else.

    Their mind is cloudy with bias, negative thinking and superior mentality. I am more impressed about honest and open posters.

    I find it interesting that you equate academic thinking with deception, inexperience, bias, negativity, superiority, dishonesty, and lack of openness. I would also be interested in your reaction to finding that you have based your judgement on my position on the incorrect assumption that you posted in the first paragraph.

    If anyone had proposed that academic thinking was vital for global discussions in order to avoid conflict, would you automatically disagree? Or is it only because in this particular incident, where you already disagree, that you find yourself stating that intellect has no place in global discussions?

    Would that not be bias?

    Real world is not academic class room.

    Nor is it an internet discussion board.

    It is unpredictable and unreliable.

    Humans are not quite so unpredictable as they think they are. After all, there is a reason that we have military bases in the area to begin with.

    Academic thinking for economy, social stability, tension between neighbors are magical wand from fairly tale.

    Well, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I would rather entrust the world to people who can think out problems instead of just limiting themselves to how heavy a stick they should hit something with.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    globalwatcher: "It is a myth that two to tango."

    So you've seen a tango with one person? :)

    "It can start from one side."

    It can START from one side, as in an attack, but a war requires more than one party to be fighting. In any case, when it comes to this and other island issues BOTH sides have led things to the point they are at now, regardless of who attacks whom first (if it comes to that). Thanks, Ishihara!

    "I just do not see any peaceful dialogue. Both want the same black rock in the ocean for oil."

    I don't see any peaceful dialogue at present either, so long as they speak of sovereignty. If they met and could agree to work on trade and help each other in developing the fields around the islands THEN there would be room for progress. But again, that would require completely ignoring the sovereignty issue. Any talks on that issue would keep things where they are or have them escalate further.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Wow, how soon we forget. There was an article on this site only a few weeks ago in which China said the two nations must meet half-way, so feel free to look it up (my guess is you won't, selective memory and all).

    No Smith. It's not about selective memory for me. It's about your ability to interpret articles and how you memorize them.

    For instance, I remember China asking Japan to "meet half way" on some English sourced articles but I kept wondering what specifically did China give in. What is this 'half" that you stated that China is "willing to meet"?

    As for the Senkaku/ Takeshima comparison, I never stated that Korea was wrong in stating that there was no dispute. This is why Japan has stopped asking for bi lateral negotiations long time ago, hence the request to go to ICJ. Now if you could kindly answer my question as to how you would react if Japan acted like China towards Korea near Takeshima and Sea of Japan.

  • 1

    Alejandro Dela Cruz

    Bertiewooster... How about this one.

    PH sends the issue to the UN, China says no discussion needed, deploys a hundred of land units on the disputed islands, sends a few navy fleet including attack submarines, builds buildings on DISPUTED Islands. Great?

    Now, issue with Japan, they send their dispute to the UN because Japan has a military to defend. Wow, just how screwed minded the Chinese rulers are. How insulting too. And to think China is not the aggressor, hell yeah, they are the ones who started all these dispute problems when everyone were in status quo.

    Avoid which is strong, harass the weak mentality?

    Typical Communist mindset. I just saw the news in youtube that US has passed a law that targets rumored Chinese nuclear tunnels. I bet China is hiding now. lol.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    cabadaje FEB. 09, 2013 - 08:32AM JST

    Disagreement isn't considered dishonesty.

    It is untrue. You manipulated my admission of inferior communication skills for your poisonous propaganda. Self -compliment is very rare among other posters.

    It is your own post from FEB. 08, 2013 - 06:17PM JST

    Just like these posters, they have wagered all their beliefs on the same pillar. Anytime they are challenged, they are forced to double-down or admit failure of the whole.

    How on earth you insulted other posters for having disagreement with you? I have never admitted I have failed or China has failed. You conclude my honesty for communication skills as your PRC bashing stick. I dislike China foreign policy too. However it is not my concern of China economy, social stability and nationalism. Japan and US are not different either. Pot and Kettle has different form for boiling water. Their objective is same.

    PRC is ruled by technocrats. They are weak in PR war. They concern more about their domestic audience. Your comments have zero impact on them. Even not all of other audience want to read lengthy, extreme and irrelevant essays.

    I am ever ready to challenge your extreme and unreasonable view if the topic is relevant with your length posts. However it is not relevant therefore I will not debate.

    Except you other posters are total failure. It is your propaganda machine as Nathaw said.

    You wanted to promote yourself as self proclaimed GURU of today China. It is hard not to describe as deception, dishonesty and unfairness of your last post to me. I and other posters are not here to discuss about China problem. We are discussing about Panetta, US foreign policy and dealing with territory dispute. It is obvious that you are on wrong thread for your endless and pointless lectures. Your two last posts did not mention single word about Penatta.

    That last two posts are bashing sticks for PRC. I am not attending the PRC bashing lesson. It is boring and unrelated to the topic.

    cabadaje FEB. 08, 2013 - 10:43AM JST

    In the event that we even suspect nuclear weapons of being deployed, that will be the only reason that China would experience a mainland invasion. The rest of the modern civilized world has absolutely zero tolerance for nuclear weapons.

    It makes me recall the earlier days of Irag invasion. It is another wild west extremist view of Geo Politics. The air is hotter. Another fairy magical wand from day dreamer. US is still struggling to foot the bill for raping of Iragi civilization, oil fields innocent civilians. It is very out of touch with reality. Unlike Irag, China is not homemade toy for US.

    In the perfect world, Russia will agree everything whatever US say. Not in real world.! Look at Seria right now. US is impotent to pursue the another mis-adventure. Civilized world have lost the trust of US deception, fraud and exaggeration. If US admin still have wild west fantasy, that world will end sooner than later.

    Panetta is so incompetent and failed. He should retire like Clinton.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    Correction to Seria as Syria. In my living memory, PRC has nuclear armed since1964. Rest of civilized world is tolerable about PRC defense purpose unless they use it first.Rest of civilized world worry more about US reckless air strike and dome strike for in the name of liberation and killing innocence civilians.

    Someone who is advocating for other invasion of sovereign nation means showing their true color of cold blood, cruel intention for dominance and imperialist mentality. Panetta and Obama has been questioned by US senate for their crime against humanity. In the future, they will be more restrained and expose their operation. No nation on the earth has god send power to bully weaker one. It is barbaric and out dated.

    It was another war crime and violation of human rights. Panetta should resign for his failure and lies.

  • 1

    T-Mack

    Here China...!!!, here's the Senaku Island's....Now drink a hot steaming cup of shut the $*@% up!!!.....China will get those Island's over United States Navy's dead bodies...We like buying your cheap good's, but the threat's, the polution!, the Human right's violation's! are enough to drive anybody "nuts"....John Kerry, the new Secretary of State, need's to call China and tell them to stop this or else...and when they say or else "what"? We say, we stop buying your good's and sanction you ten times more than North Korea, And patrol Nuclear Submarine's with alot of Atomic Ordinance, just off your shores...just for starter's....

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in Politics

View all

View all