Originally posted by rapier28
First of all, they is a difference between the Chinese people killing Chinese and the Japanese killing Chinese, THERE ARE SEPARATE EVENTS. Are you
suggesting that WW1 and WW2 should be interchangeable because people died fighting?
Morally the world wars are interchangable because they both resulted in the slaughter of people over nationalist issues. So yes.
The technical seperation is not the issue. I could kill two different people and it would be two different events, but there would be a moral
equivalence between the two murders.
The moral equivalency is the issue. There is not a moral difference and therefore RedHare's attempt to counter the issue of Chinese massacres on
their population was flawed. The only real defense on that issue was that two wrongs don't make a right. Anything beyond that is denying the
wrongfulness of what the Chinese did.
Secondly, i wonder what the Jews would say if you told them that the Holocaust had never occurred?
You obviously have a huge misunderstanding of what I have said. I have not disputed the attrocities committed by the Japanese at all.
While figures from Nanjing are disputed, the primary sources such as photos do not lie. Go look it up on Wikipedia.
I am aware of what happened in Nanjing and I do not dispute it. I dispute RedHare's defense of Chinese attrocities and I dispute his insistence on
perpetuating the legacy of hate from a war that ended 60 years ago.
The rise of extreme-right-wing politicians in Japan is quite alarming, you should go to google and search what they Mayor Ishihara has said in
Actually you should tell me what Mayor Ishihara has said in the past. At any rate I have covered this as well. Being wary of political developments in
a neighboring nation is only fair. (Although we should also be realistic- this guy you bring up is a MAYOR. America has communist mayors- does that
mean America is on the brink of going Red?)
There is a big difference between keeping an eye towards the future and dwelling on the past. RedHare is dwelling on the past.
EDIT: Also, Japan is militarily progressing, the step into Iraq is the beginning of a military build up, this is not fear-mongering or
anything, just a statement.
I mentioned that myself actually.
And another thing, Japan still has quite a sizeable fleet, 60+ major surface vessels, you should be interested to note thats more then China's
fleet. With all the Hoora about China's military build-up, isn't it interesting to note that Japan has always maintained such a sizeable fleet,
even before the Chinese build-up.
I don't find it interesting in the least actually. Japan is an island nation very near 2 nations which could argueably be called super powers (China
and Russia). Japan has been a major naval power for the last 100 years, which is only to be expected of a large industrialized island nation.
There is reason to be wary of Japan and to keep an eye on what develops there, but their fleet is scarcely one of those reasons unless they start
preparing a major ground force and the naval means to transport it. Without that, and without aircraft carriers, Japans forces would appear to be
predominately defensive in nature.
EDIT2: Just a side note, it's funny that this corresponds with the Japanese government just editing a recent textbook on iraq.
1. There changed words from "US unilaterally attacked" to "US attacked Iraq".
You have a problem with them editing their textbooks for FACTUAL ACCURACY and countering a POLITICAL LIE? It's not unilateral when 2 other nations go
with you, especially when one of the other nations is on the UN Security Council with you.
I don't like the war, but it's not unilateral. The Japanese have an excellent education system and I'm not surprised that unlike some in America,
they would recognize that fact.
2. Removed mentioning of no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
1 out of 3 aint bad. This is in fact an clear cut case of convenient memory.
3. said that the Japan Self-Defence Force were deployed to a "non-combat areas", instead of a "battlezone".
Japanese forces entered after regular Iraqi forces had been defeated and were employed in non-combat missions. This is a factually accurate statement
and is important to include in Japanese textbooks. If it were not included it would imply the creation of a precedent for violating Article 9 of the
Japanese Constitution, which ensures pacifism. Would you like for Japanese textbooks to suggest that Japan was once again allowed to undertake
aggressive military operations?
LMAO, the last one is the funniest, if it's non-combat, why on Earth are we Australians sending troops to replace the dutch that were
Because you can't create a non-combat zone without having a combat zone on the perimeter. Otherwise the enemy will come in and turn your non-combat
zone into a combat zone.
My skull is a no baseball zone. So why do I wear a batting helmet when I play baseball if it's a no baseball zone? So the baseball can't enter the
no baseball zone. Simple.
To be fair, China has recently yanked a textbook that was i guess, a Chinese version of revisionism (though it did not go nearly as far as
Japan's) by a Chinese author. The link is on japantoday, can't get it, it's pop up.
I think ultimately this is exactly the point. Everybody does wrong, everybody twists the story of their wrong-doing. It can't be undone and it can't
be absolved just because somebody else did wrong also. All we can do is let the past be past and concern ourselves with the future. There are concerns
over Japan's future, but blind hatred by people like RedHare obscure those concerns and present barriers to legitimate and productive discussion of