Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
You're more on topic than a lot of the previous comments, but sorry I don't know!sry to go off topic
You're more on topic than a lot of the previous comments, but sorry I don't know!sry to go off topic
Well, then Japan does admit that the existence of SDF was from theBecause the Constitution as it stands seems to forbid that capable navy (and I wouldn't say its airpower is "huge") from existing at all. Japan wants to have the Constitution recognise its armed forces as being legitimate.
Why is that not acceptable?
sry to go off topic,but does anyone of you have some information of the specification for the LPD South Korea is building for the Indonesian Navy?
That's just being daft. Japan wasn't allowed to point that out when the Constitution was drafted for it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.Well, then Japan does admit that the existence of SDF was from the start a viloation of its own constitution? It shouldn't have existed in the first place if Japan wanted to lay a true claim to being an entirely pacifist nation.
No, amending the Constitution sounds as if it wants to become a normal nation. If you think changing it makes Japan seem more aggressive then according to your logic South Korea is already aggressive because it has always reserved the use of force against another country. On the other hand Japan would still be prohibited from having things like cruise missiles, so it would still be less aggressive than someone like South Korea.Amending the constitution only sounds as if it wants to move on from being a pacifist nation to a more aggressive stance.
Same goes for Korea.That's just being daft. Japan wasn't allowed to point that out when the Constitution was drafted for it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
No offence but you have very unique view on Korea-Japan politics. You insisted Korea is aggressive because she is building its small navy, then now insists it again with her cruise missle?No, amending the Constitution sounds as if it wants to become a normal nation. If you think changing it makes Japan seem more aggressive then according to your logic South Korea is already aggressive because it has always reserved the use of force against another country. On the other hand Japan would still be prohibited from having things like cruise missiles, so it would still be less aggressive than someone like South Korea.
I did not say South Korea (it is South Korea, not "Korea") is aggressive. I said that if one regards Japan modifying its Constitution as being aggressive, then surely the ROKN placing cruise missiles on its ships is also aggressive.No offence but you have very unique view on Korea-Japan politics. You insisted Korea is aggressive because she is building its small navy, then now insists it again with her cruise missle?
Do you believe Japan should not rationalise its Constitution just to please South Korea?I mean, do you think Korea should not have cruise missle nor build any latest warships just to please Japanese?
Japan has been at peace with the world since 1945 - that is a fact. As to South Korea being "aggressive", please read my posts more carefully. You will see that I was using daewon's own logic to make points.I don't know why, but your view sounds so biased to believe that japanese are pacifists and koreans are aggressive, how weird!
My point was that Japan was able to maintain a very capable defence forceThat's just being daft. Japan wasn't allowed to point that out when the Constitution was drafted for it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
No, amending the Constitution sounds as if it wants to become a normal nation. If you think changing it makes Japan seem more aggressive then according to your logic South Korea is already aggressive because it has always reserved the use of force against another country. On the other hand Japan would still be prohibited from having things like cruise missiles, so it would still be less aggressive than someone like South Korea.
There is no such thing as a "war criminal nation". There are "war criminals" - you cannot transpose the actions of people onto the whole country, especially when those alive today had nothing to do with those crimes. It would be like me saying that because some people from your home committed arson in my neighbourhood, your neighbourhood is a "criminal" one. Somehow I doubt you would accept that position.Japan unlike Korea is a war criminal nation. True, that was 50 years ago but they just never owned up to it.
It's not for me to forgive. But you need to accept that there is freedom of speech in Japan, and the government can't lock people up because they upset others. You shouldn't just focus on the views of some people - you need to look at the majority. Many people see a lot of xenophobia in South Korea (towards almost all foreigners), so according to your logic foreigners should not see South Korea as a perfectly friendly nation.Also if you take a look at their culture the Samurai Spirit lives on. With literatures and animations praising desires of the glory they had 60 years ago, it is unnerving to see as a neighbour.
So please forgive me if I cannot quite believe that Japan is a perfectly friendly nation.
SIGH, read my post #84.I also cannot understand how you view ROK as aggressive.
Well, if the people in his neighbourhood protect the arsonist from prosecution, deny that the arsonist did anything wrong. Would you get the impression that the people there are potential arsonists as well and be suspicious of them ?There is no such thing as a "war criminal nation". There are "war criminals" - you cannot transpose the actions of people onto the whole country, especially when those alive today had nothing to do with those crimes. It would be like me saying that because some people from your home committed arson in my neighbourhood, your neighbourhood is a "criminal" one. Somehow I doubt you would accept that position.
....
If the actions of the arsonist occurred 60 years ago and there had been no arson since, I would trust the people who now live in that neighbourhood.Well, if the people in his neighbourhood protect the arsonist from prosecution, deny that the arsonist did anything wrong. Would you get the impression that the people there are potential arsonists as well and be suspicious of them ?
Even if today they deny that the arsonist did anything wrong ?If the actions of the arsonist occurred 60 years ago and there had been no arson since, I would trust the people who now live in that neighbourhood.
Cheers
I don't see the whole of Japan denying such a thing - not even a majority.Even if today they deny that the arsonist did anything wrong ?
That hasn't stopped the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany. Besides I disagree with their laws. It isn't for government to legislate on history - it sets a bad precedent for the future. It's for the academic community to discuss history.Why do the Germans make it a crime to deny or glorify what the Nazi did even now ?
Same with Japan - thanks for helping us with our arguments.Last I checked, the Germans alive today sure didn't commit the crimes.
Well, the government, who make those comments, is elected by the people. Abe may have low approval now, but I don't think it was due to his comments on history. We'll see if the 'peace loving' majority of Japan punish him and other politicians who made similar comments in the next poll.I don't see the whole of Japan denying such a thing - not even a majority.
That hasn't stopped the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany. Besides I disagree with their laws. It isn't for government to legislate on history - it sets a bad precedent for the future. It's for the academic community to discuss history.
Same with Japan - thanks for helping us with our arguments.
If you can prove he was elected because of his views on the war, please do so. Otherwise that argument is irrelevant.Well, the government, who make those comments, is elected by the people.
You're still not making that much sense.What I meant was the Germans see the need to stop making similar comments about history as the Japanese did despite, just like the Japanese,they too didn't commit the crimes.
I think the one who is desperate is you, bringing in nonsense about how Abe is elected so that means the Japanese people support his views on the war. No one with any credibility would make the sort of statement you did.Perhaps you're too desperate for help that you grabbed anything without fully understanding them.
That is debatable.There is not more or less neo-Nazism in Germany than anywhere else in Europe.
So today it's Nazism. But what if someone else takes power. What's to stop them changing the law to saying it's illegal to criticise the Nazi era? If you can have a law to hush-up Nazism you can have a law to protect it - the Constitution cannot help because it was rendered powerless by the first law. Or maybe it will be a law against arguing the European Union is a bad idea. Who knows - the possibilities are endless.I see no problem in making glorifying or denying the warcrimes of the past a crime. Or do you think it helps when neo-nazis give cd's with nazi music to kids in the school?
Irrelevant ? If it's a dictatorship, one may be able to blame the lunatic at the top. But in a democracy, the leader must have known that he can get many votes in the population thru the comments on history.If you can prove he was elected because of his views on the war, please do so. Otherwise that argument is irrelevant.
You're still not making that much sense.
I think the one who is desperate is you, bringing in nonsense about how Abe is elected so that means the Japanese people support his views on the war. No one with any credibility would make the sort of statement you did.
........
You are still not providing any evidence for the fact a majority of people voted for Abe because of his views on history. There are many issues that influence elections - history is right at the bottom of voters' list of priorities.Irrelevant ? If it's a dictatorship, one may be able to blame the lunatic at the top. But in a democracy, the leader must have known that he can get many votes in the population thru the comments on history.
Again, you have no evidence that he was voted for because of his visits. He was popular because he shook up the country after years of failed economic policies.If not Abe, how about Koizumi who was quite popular despite his regular visits to the war-shrines etc etc.
And your evidence that history is at the bottom of the voters' list or that Koizumi's popularity was due to the economy & not the visits ? The voters sure didn't punish Koizumi for his visits.You are still not providing any evidence for the fact a majority of people voted for Abe because of his views on history. There are many issues that influence elections - history is right at the bottom of voters' list of priorities.
Again, you have no evidence that he was voted for because of his visits. He was popular because he shook up the country after years of failed economic policies.