[Chinese, Korean United] World Wide Appeal!!! (1 Viewer)

[supercharged]

3) Assuming that history means anything at all, the Japanese would have a greater claim on the islands than the Chinese, since the Chinese never actually occupied the islands. QUOTE]

Actually the japanese never occupied them either since the island are uninhabitable so whats your point? The only structure standing on the island is a flimsy homemade lighthouse put there by some jap nationalists a few years ago. so what LEGAL reason are the japanese basing their claim to ownership from?

 

[neo o]

3) Assuming that history means anything at all, the Japanese would have a greater claim on the islands than the Chinese, since the Chinese never actually occupied the islands. QUOTE]

Actually the japanese never occupied them either since the island are uninhabitable so whats your point? The only structure standing on the island is a flimsy homemade lighthouse put there by some jap nationalists a few years ago. so what LEGAL reason are the japanese basing their claim to ownership from?

READ MY FUCKING POSTS.

Yes, no-one inhabited the islands. The Japanese claimed the islands though under the doctrine of Terra Nullius in 1895, and back then they WERE developed by the Japanese.

The ENTIRE ISSUE here is that China is claiming these islands which have been under Japanese control for THE LAST 100 YEARS under treaties which never mentioned those islands.

 

[Benny_]

Imagine giving a government that massacred thousands of civilians in the invasion of a neighbouring territory and mowed down peacefully protesting students a seat on the security council. Oh wait, they did.

Yes, the fact that China occupies Tibet today is a disgrace, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a disgrace if Japan did get that seat for similar atrocities does it.

That's the difference between the Chinese and the West, we don't view whole sale slaughter as a means to social stability. Though, it is pretty cute that you're actually trying to justify it, nice try.

I love it how you can dismiss all the historical, cultural and political factors which contribute to Tiananmen Square and judge it simply as "the difference between the Chinese and the West". How enlightened of you.

 

[supercharged]

Wtf is this about Tibet? Hello but the Tibet seperatist issue is over. Tibet has been part of China for over 250 years and even the Dalai lama wants it to stay as part of the PRC

 

[lawforever]

That's the difference between the Chinese and the West, we don't view whole sale slaughter as a means to social stability. Though, it is pretty cute that you're actually trying to justify it, nice try.

very simple, do you wanna see 1 ppl die, or you prefer to see 10000 ppl die, if the situation doesn't allow you to keep everyone survive ?

I guess maybe west views slaughter as a mean to nothing, or just to make fun? otherwise, why would iraq is still socially unstable now ? Don't tell me abt weapon of mass destruction shit.


ur turn for justifying now, good luck !

 

[neo o]

Wtf is this about Tibet? Hello but the Tibet seperatist issue is over. Tibet has been part of China for over 250 years and even the Dalai lama wants it to stay as part of the PRC

Actually Tibet was annexed in 1949-51. Incidentally, Tibet has been in Chinese control for half the time the Senkaku islands have been in Japanese control. Hypocricy is a wonderful little thing isn't it.

 

[Benny_]

 

[lawforever]

I love it how you can dismiss all the historical, cultural and political factors which contribute to Tiananmen Square and judge it simply as "the difference between the Chinese and the West". How enlightened of you.

law studies enable people to be very good at sophism, you know.

 

[neo o]

Yes, the fact that China occupies Tibet today is a disgrace, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a disgrace if Japan did get that seat for similar atrocities does it.

Get the seat for similar atrocities? There seems to be a misunderstanding, a place on the UN security council is not awarded for the amount of atrocities a nation commits.

That aside, I was making the point that the place would be in recognition of Japans status as an economic superpower. All countries have commited atrocities in the past, but regardless Japan plays a powerful part in todays world.

I love it how you can dismiss all the historical, cultural and political factors which contribute to Tiananmen Square and judge it simply as "the difference between the Chinese and the West". How enlightened of you.

Well, in the West we don't mow down peaceful protesters with tanks, it is a rather big distinction.

 

[jm1234567890]

law studies enable people to be very good at sophism, you know.

lol .

 

[supercharged]

If you want China out of Tibet then you should also kick Japan out of Okinwana since they used to be independent too :uhhuh:

 

[lawforever]

Actually Tibet was annexed in 1949-51. Incidentally, Tibet has been in Chinese control for half the time the Senkaku islands have been in Japanese control. Hypocricy is a wonderful little thing isn't it.

let me see if i can find any publisher for your wonderful statement.

cuz you seem to have so many interesting points about china.
Tibet was a part of china since 1949, becuz that was the time when PRC was established. (remember it)


According to your comments, Australian annexed NSW in 1901

 

[paper cup]

keep it nice boys.

 

[!! CaR`JiE !!]

yeh be nice

 

[Benny_]

Get the seat for similar atrocities? There seems to be a misunderstanding, a place on the UN security council is not awarded for the amount of atrocities a nation commits.

That aside, I was making the point that the place would be in recognition of Japans status as an economic superpower. All countries have commited atrocities in the past, but regardless Japan plays a powerful part in todays world.

Misphrased sorry.

Japan will play an even bigger part in today's world when it's vetoing China in favour of the US on the UNSC I'm sure, but I guess that's rather irrelevant in this debate.

Well, in the West we don't mow down peaceful protesters with tanks, it is a rather big distinction.

You're right, we in the west go to other countries to kill peaceful civilians, who aren't even protesting I might add .

 

[LMF^^]

Alwayz good to see someone get owned on the intarweb.

 

[Rorix]

The first post sucked and the thread has gone downhill from there.

The best bit was when the retard with, as far as I am aware, no diplomatic experience decided that Japan was unworthy of a seat on the UN Security Council when the General Assembly has elected Japan 16 times, the second most of any country (Brazil 18).

Furthermore said poster seems to have no idea on what basis the original permanent members of the Security Council were awarded that status - by being the winners of WW2.

 

[Rorix]

Japan will play an even bigger part in today's world when it's vetoing China in favour of the US on the UNSC I'm sure, but I guess that's rather irrelevant in this debate.

If the United States wanted a veto on any Security Council resolution, they could already do so, and do not need a second veto from Japan. So yes, I guess that is rather irrelevant in this debate.

You're right, we in the west go to other countries to kill peaceful civilians, who aren't even protesting I might add .

You're by far the worst troll I've ever seen. I don't even feel compelled to respond.

 

[paper cup]

If the United States wanted a veto on any Security Council resolution, they could already do so, and do not need a second veto from Japan. So yes, I guess that is rather irrelevant in this debate.



You're by far the worst troll I've ever seen. I don't even feel compelled to respond.

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

IT'S YOU!!!!

EVERYBODY RUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN FOR YOUR LIVES

 

[Rorix]

Tibet was a part of china since 1949, becuz that was the time when PRC was established. (remember it)

Are you familiar with the meaning of the term annex?

According to your comments, Australian annexed NSW in 1901

Evidentally you are not. For land to be annexed, there must be an existing state into which it is added. The creation of the country of Australia cannot, by definition, annex any land.



edit: sup cherry