|
Post by Tim on Feb 2, 2006 20:25:11 GMT -5
PRLA, are you saying America will gain nothing by investing in China? After all, China is an improving country, while Japan is a declining country. And that still doesn't answer why America is helping Japan to fight against China.
The LA Times is not trustworthy? I shall remember that, perhaps even unsubscribe to them if that's the case. I also feel sorry for Los Angeles people like me because they have to read nonsense everyday.
You should be more careful of the Tibetan and Xinjiang cases. The Dalai Lama holds more power than you think. Just ask anyone on this board if they support Tibetan independence. I had an arguement with them about this a few months ago. And another thing, you cannot counter the fact that most Tibetans want independence. Read any Tibetans that immigrant to other countries' website: they all want independence. It is hard to judge the Tibetans that want to stay with China because of the Communists' propaganda. Last thing: do you think that the Dalai Lama hasn't tried to reason with the Communists? He can get the world to be involve with this. India, Nepal, and America might wage war against China if China refuse to free Tibet.
I llive in America, and although many Westerners are nice to us, I do have to say I met many of them who hate Chinese as well. The Americans gave most of the Transcontinental Railroad's credits to the Irish, while the Chinese were a forgotten people.
Maybe using "political leader" was a bad choice of words, but you have to admit: the republicans are anti-Chinese because they think China will steal America's first place (can't really blame them, though, although I wish they could be a bit more friendly), and the liberals are anti-Chinese because they think China has no human rights whatsoever.
Europe is much more friendly with China than they are to America, from my point of view.
|
|
dipolimatic immunity
Guest
|
Post by dipolimatic immunity on Feb 2, 2006 23:09:26 GMT -5
Tim,
1) Japan is one of U.S allies, anything that happens to Japan the U.S. will get involved. After 9/11, the U.S. forces were moved into areas where most likely some kind of terrorist action or worse would happen in the future. U.S forces are station in Europe, Northeast Asia, East Asia, Middle East, and Southeast Asia. In my opinion, the people in the U.S. government looks at China as another Soviet Union. Most people in the government came from the Reagan years where the cold war was still going. They are making plans for future actions that might take place in Asia where China and India are the big guns. They don't care about China 2006, they care about China 2020. Just my opinion, correct me if I'm wrong I'm not good with this type of stuff.
2) Japan don't have a real offensive military might to attack a island ,let alone, China at the state its in. Japan consists of Defensive forces to deal with internal disputes, while if a international dispute occurs both US-Japan defensive forces would join together.
3) Japan cannot afford to be an aggressive nation at this point in time. Seeing what happen to the U.S. on 9/11, Japan is torn between 2 things on its security policies. One, most conservatives are using the terrorists fiasco to create a security policy on which to arm Japan with ballistic missiles for a last resort if defense fails. Two, they are using America alliance to gather more international security and prevent any hostility to other countries. Meaning the Japanese government is using their security forces to do international work ie: HIV/Aids funds, natural disaster aids, etc. in order to deter any bad blood with any nation.
Also Tim, try not to use the Chinese vs. Westerner in your explanation of why some Americans hate the Chinese. You are generalizing and you are basing this solely on your experience with others. So some people were nice to you and others were not, that is life.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 3, 2006 0:08:27 GMT -5
Wow, dipolimatic immunity, you left me speechless for a second ;D... I should give things more thoughts. Lol. Anyways, yeah, you're probably right that America sees China as the successor to Soviet. I suppose that's what happens when a communist country is going against a democratic country, eh? Well, this may sound naive, but making friends with China (or just being a little friendly) wouldn't be such a bad idea. I know about the Cold War and Korean War and stuff, but China was also America's allies before. We are Chinese before we were Communist. About Japan, I don't think China would be rash enough to invade Japan ('cause I know America will help Japan. In fact, America HAS to help Japan), but America should remember the fact that Japan backstabbed them (OK, I know they weren't really allies, but still) during WWII, and the crimes the Japanese have committed are unforgivable. America should at least take this into consideration. What if Japan invaded Korea and China? That would not be good, and with proper military weapons and skills, they can do that. What will America do then? Help Japan counqer China and Korea (and I believe there are troops in South Korea)? Yeah, ok fine, my experience about some people being nice and mean to me was rather childish. I'll drop that.
|
|
|
Post by PRLA on Feb 3, 2006 2:26:47 GMT -5
[quote author=chigirl68 board=YSStangets thread=1133396030 post=1138929911] Thanks for your responses Tim and PRLA. I didn't mean to sound like I was picking a fight or anything of the sort.[/quote] No worries. I enjoyed your response. PRLA, are you saying America will gain nothing by investing in China? After all, China is an improving country, while Japan is a declining country. And that still doesn't answer why America is helping Japan to fight against China. Certainly not what i am saying at all. America has potential for investing in china. But for some reason the US finds china economically and socially threatening. The LA Times is not trustworthy? I shall remember that, perhaps even unsubscribe to them if that's the case. I also feel sorry for Los Angeles people like me because they have to read nonsense everyday. Now I am not saying every news is bad. But you can not trust everything that is written. You should be more careful of the Tibetan and Xinjiang cases. The Dalai Lama holds more power than you think. Just ask anyone on this board if they support Tibetan independence. I had an arguement with them about this a few months ago. And another thing, you cannot counter the fact that most Tibetans want independence. Read any Tibetans that immigrant to other countries' website: they all want independence. It is hard to judge the Tibetans that want to stay with China because of the Communists' propaganda. Last thing: do you think that the Dalai Lama hasn't tried to reason with the Communists? He can get the world to be involve with this. India, Nepal, and America might wage war against China if China refuse to free Tibet. I already stated my views on this matter. Its all about dialogue between countries and less about trying to being in the media.
|
|
dipolmatic immunity
Guest
|
Post by dipolmatic immunity on Feb 3, 2006 10:07:39 GMT -5
Well, this may sound naive, but making friends with China (or just being a little friendly) wouldn't be such a bad idea. I know about the Cold War and Korean War and stuff, but China was also America's allies before. We are Chinese before we were Communist. The American governmernt have no choice but to make friends with China because the American big businesses are heading to that very direction. However, there will be huge arguments between the two nations because of the unbalance of the import/export in China. The U.S. export about 3 billions or so of natural resources to China ie: Metal, wood, ect, While the U.S. import 3 times that from China in all products ranging from T.V.s to dinner plates because of the low costs. China, on the other hand, does not import that much from the U.S. which is costing the U.S. tons of money, So the U.S. have no choice but to comply to China. What if Japan invaded Korea and China? That would not be good, and with proper military weapons and skills, they can do that. What will America do then? Help Japan counqer China and Korea (and I believe there are troops in South Korea)? This scenerio cannot happen because it will be an unconstitutional act upon Japan. In Japan constitution on Article 9, it quotes "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." In essence, Japan would not be able to even create such a militray force without the U.S. stopping them.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 3, 2006 22:52:51 GMT -5
Dipolimatic immunity, you are an expert on these cases! Seriously, my compliments. I didn't know that it was written in the Japanese constitution, so that explains a lot. Thanks again. I know about the import system, but it just seems to magically vanished from my mind in this debate, lol. Now that you mention it, it does seem to make sense. Americans really aren't profitting that much off China, while it is China who is really profitting from the trades.
PRLA, I still disagree with the Tibet/Xinjiang issue. Opinions can be quite deadly, if you think about it.
|
|
diplomatic immunity
Guest
|
Post by diplomatic immunity on Feb 4, 2006 0:08:31 GMT -5
Glad to to help, Tim.
About China dilemma, there are a few things that the Chinese government will have to deal with in its rise.
China domestic problems:
-limited military capability (China need to increase their naval capabilities in the mainly Maritime region of Asia-Pacific, which it would need to become asia great power. The current Navy are overwhemled by the immense land-based military.
-the limits of industrial, including defense industrial capacity
-Continuing concern fro feeding and improving conditions for the mass population
China International problems:
-China was late joing the international community,thus, was not involved in formulating laws in the best interest of China. So now China must work within the international system that involves-the U.N., Arms Control,World Trade, and human rights.
-China policies on the balance of regional and,eventually, world power will be crucial for its sucess.
But the sole problem in China, in my opinion, is that its ambition is only concern toward gaining power in the asian region when it must also consider its might globally.
The 2008 olympics will truly be a test for the Chinese government to quiet down the internal problems. I'm sure there are tons of Tibetians, Xinjiang, Falun Gong members, and others that are itching to display their displeasure to the international camera.
|
|
|
Post by PRLA on Feb 4, 2006 2:15:57 GMT -5
This scenerio cannot happen because it will be an unconstitutional act upon Japan. In Japan constitution on Article 9, it quotes "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." In essence, Japan would not be able to even create such a militray force without the U.S. stopping them. Actually it can now. Japan's prime minister Junko Koizumi,and his LDP group, Already changed the article 9 in the constitution. It allows engagements in acts of war time.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 4, 2006 11:45:24 GMT -5
It looks like China has a long road ahead of her. The 2008 Olympics is very crucial; if China does well, she may win the respect of foreign nations and probably pacify many Xinjiang/Tibetans; if China doesn't do well...
PRLA, how long ago did Japan change her constitution act? Wouldn't America have to approve it or at least be aware of that? How come I don't recall reading any recent articles about it?
But still, even if Japan can declare war right now, Dipolimatic Immunity has reminded us that Japan can't go to war without America's approval. I doubt America will let Japan invade Asia. And besides, America does not have sole power over everything. The European Union will react, as they already have with the Iraq War. The Europeans are not happy with the Iraq War, and any more senseless wars may force the Europeans to take further actions.
|
|
Diplomatic Immunity
Guest
|
Post by Diplomatic Immunity on Feb 6, 2006 13:03:38 GMT -5
Actually it can now. Japan's prime minister Junko Koizumi,and his LDP group, Already changed the article 9 in the constitution. It allows engagements in acts of war time. Like I said before, Japan still can't officially declare war on another nation nor threaten another nation no matter how many revisions. Many Japanese conservatives in the past have constantly tried to alter Article 9. It was revised during the cold war where the Soviet Union was seen as a threat to Japan. In 1952, Yoshida tired to eliminate Article 9, but the public opposition was to great for his movement. In 1957, Kishi tries to expand the self-defense forces and the police but was criticized very hard by the Japanese public for trying to alter the constitution. During the 1st Gulf War, it was also revised. Prime minister Junko Koizumi,and his LDP group, are using the terrorist action of 9-11 and The U.S. call on "the war on terrorist" as a means to deal with their main goals. 1) In the 1st Gulf War, Japan was seen as nothing but a "peace loving" country that contributed only the finance of a conflict, which made them lose diplomatic face with other nations. When the U.S. sent their forces to Iraq, Koizumi and Japanese policy makers jumped at the opportunity to change their national image in the world and sent their SDF forces to show that they too could contribute in some form of military help. The SDF forces are stationed in non-combat zones in iraq so they could not break the law of article 9, but their main presence there showed other countries what Japan can do to help. 2) There is a fear that the U.S. might abandon the region after 9-11. The U.S. main concentration now is in the middle east, while Japan main concern is with North Korea and northeast asia. Japan was the biggest strategic tool for the U.S. during the cold war with the Soviet Union. Now that the middle east is the new target, Japan fears that it might be left out, thus, the notion of North Korea having Weapon of Mass Destruction came into play. In my opinion, when Bush stated that "Iran, Iraq, and North Korea was the axis of evil" it was a way to give Japan some security that the U.S. was committed to that region. That's my personal view though I could be wrong. It should also be noted about the activities the SDF can and cannot do in international disputes. The SDF transports cannot carry any ammunitions BUT can carry armed coalition troops is just numerous things that are being criticized by many. The SDF deployment into Iraq were a test for Japanese conservatives to show that Japan can be involved in a military process while still maintaining their peace-loving image in the world and erasing the past militarism of imperial Japan I went too long ,sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 10, 2006 0:16:48 GMT -5
Awesome bits of infomation, dipolimatic immunity. Even though America supports Japan, do you think that means that they also support Japan's acts to cover up their past war crimes? I've taken history for as long as I could remember (history is my favorite subject), and I hardly ever remember them going through Japan's war atrocities. They have like chapters on Holocaust, but they only mention (sometimes not even that) briefly about the Japanese's war time atrocities. Is that ignorance? Or does America believe that Japan never committed any crimes against her Asian neighbors?
|
|
diplomatic Immunity
Guest
|
Post by diplomatic Immunity on Feb 16, 2006 11:05:18 GMT -5
Awesome bits of infomation, dipolimatic immunity. Even though America supports Japan, do you think that means that they also support Japan's acts to cover up their past war crimes? I've taken history for as long as I could remember (history is my favorite subject), and I hardly ever remember them going through Japan's war atrocities. They have like chapters on Holocaust, but they only mention (sometimes not even that) briefly about the Japanese's war time atrocities. Is that ignorance? Or does America believe that Japan never committed any crimes against her Asian neighbors? No, America does not or ever will except Japan past actions. Japan was an enemy to the U.S. during Japan's atrocities in WW2 so the U.S. was on the side of many of the asian region at that time. President Roosevelt was giving loans to Chiang Kai-Shek so he could continue to fight against the Japanese army. He also signed an order to stop all financial and import and export transactions, which devastated Japan because they were getting their raw materials from the U.S. However, the combination of extermination of the Japanese armed forces, the powerless emperor, article 9, the growth of Japan economy, video games, anime, manga, and other factors reduced the high level hatred (that are still present in some of the asian countries around Japan) from U.S. citizens, however, some U.S. WW2 veterans still hate the Japanese people Today history books in the U.S. do not go in-depth on events that happen in the world except involving U.S. history. Meaning children in U.S. schools will learn about Japan's past military actions through Pearl Harbor and the Nanjing Rape only. So things like: - Manchurian takeover - the Korean takeover -The Tsinan Incident - The Shanghai battle of 1932 - The assassination of Chang Tso-Lin - Japanese and Koreans smuggling heroin and opium into North China - Bataan death march and more are not in the U.S. History books. And from what I understand, Japanese kids in Japan know about the army past but do not know the full detail like their U.S. counterparts. The way most learn about these things is by teaching themselves by family stories, internet, historical shows, books etc. The number 1 mistake the U.S. did was underestimate Emperor Hirohito and how much control he had during these god awful behaviors by his army. The emperor was the commander -in -chief of both the navy and the army at that time. Many blame the Japanese army for the atrocities but Hirohito was getting briefings about them and did nothing so he was even more guilty. But also realize that there were some Japanese who opposed the atrocities and blamed the emperor. A small minority knew about Hirohito and published their anger over it: Here, Hirohito is standing over a mountain of skulls that he was responsible for.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Feb 16, 2006 18:00:30 GMT -5
Well there is still the controversial glossing of Japanese WW2 history by way of textbooks in japan. Also current trends in japan, fully embrace japanese nationalistic/imperialistic views. Theres something unwholesome about embracing acts of aggression on people.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 17, 2006 21:57:23 GMT -5
I know that the U.S. may think Asia is nothing more than a remote continent, but after taking so many years of history, the only real part that American textbooks go in depth into during WWII era is the Holocaust. They talk so much about how the German Nazis were evil and stuff, but they barely mention the Japanese. Why mention the Germans as evil people, but not the Japanese? There are sources that said that even the Nazis were amazed at the Japanese's atrocious behaviors. Why do Americans make it as though the Japanese were nothing more than an enemy nation?
Of course there are Japanese who are against Hirohito's actions, but minorities usually mean nothing. With the history textbooks and the continual visits to Yasukuni shrine, this proves that there are more Japanese who hate Chinese and wants to cover up their past.
The Americans help the Chinese during WWII, but let's not forget that the Americans decided to vanquish the Chinese during the Korean and Vietnam war. They helped the communists rise and overthrow Chaing Kai-shek, and what's more, they even pardon some of the Japanese, just so that they could use Japan as a base to destroy China! It is their later actions that describe their true nature. The Americans went from China's ally to China's enemy.
|
|
Diplomatic Immunity
Guest
|
Post by Diplomatic Immunity on Feb 18, 2006 22:38:25 GMT -5
I know that the U.S. may think Asia is nothing more than a remote continent, but after taking so many years of history, the only real part that American textbooks go in depth into during WWII era is the Holocaust. They talk so much about how the German Nazis were evil and stuff, but they barely mention the Japanese. Why mention the Germans as evil people, but not the Japanese? There are sources that said that even the Nazis were amazed at the Japanese's atrocious behaviors. Why do Americans make it as though the Japanese were nothing more than an enemy nation? Well, Germany rise and invasion of Poland was the jump start of WW2 (although a lot of stuff happened before that invasion) so you can see why the history books focus more on Hitler and the Nazis more than, let say, Mussolini or Emperor Hirohito. And the Holocaust was the worst atrocity in the war, not because of the death toll but because it was a industrial business solely on killing and annihilating a group of people. Also, you seem to only concern yourself on how people feel about the Japanese troops in WW2, right? But there were tons of evil deeds being done by a lot of other troops around the world in WW2. Yes, the U.S. history books are bad resources to learn everything that happened in WW2, but don't limit yourself only on the atrocities the Japanese troops did because your asian. If you only care about the Japanese troops atrocities than your no better than a British teen who only cares about the war in Europe and don't care about the war in Asia or a Ethiopian teen who only cares about the war in The Mediterranean. With the history textbooks and the continual visits to Yasukuni shrine, this proves that there are more Japanese who hate Chinese and wants to cover up their past. Your generalizing again. The Americans help the Chinese during WWII, but let's not forget that the Americans decided to vanquish the Chinese during the Korean and Vietnam war. They helped the communists rise and overthrow Chaing Kai-shek, and what's more, they even pardon some of the Japanese, just so that they could use Japan as a base to destroy China! It is their later actions that describe their true nature. The Americans went from China's ally to China's enemy. Vanquish is a harsh word to say. I do agree that the Truman administration did abandon Chaing Kai-shek and only was concern about China's Civil war because of the Korean War and the overall war on Communism, but " Vanquish the Chinese" is way too strong. And the U.S. did not use Japan as a base to conquer China, it was the Soviet Union that the U.S. was concern about at the time. The Vietnam war had more to do with the spread of the Soviet Union in southeast Asia than with China. During the years of the Vietnam War, China was helping the north with military aids but was having troubles internally. The Soviet Union was much more of a bigger threat to the U.S. than China was at the time. I also agree that America often does go from Ally to Enemy in a instant. Mmmm.... Maybe American policymakers need to look into that trend.
|
|