Japan faces isolation over North Korea

[Hatuey]

Japan faces isolation over North Korea - Yahoo! News

Japan has ruled out any funding for the agreement, reached Tuesday in six-nation talks that included Tokyo, until it resolves a row with North Korea over its past kidnappings of Japanese civilians.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who built his career campaigning on the emotionally charged abduction dispute, told parliament Wednesday that the issue "is our top priority."

Have we lost our balls? Why are we dealing with terrorist regimes like North Korea? Didn't Pres. Bush say they were part of the Axis of Evil? We dont negotiate with evil remember? I can't wait to see how they'll blame this one on the democrats.

 

[danarhea]

Japan faces isolation over North Korea - Yahoo! News



Have we lost our balls? Why are we dealing with terrorist regimes like North Korea? Didn't Pres. Bush say they were part of the Axis of Evil? We dont negotiate with evil remember? I can't wait to see how they'll blame this one on the democrats.

Pretty ironic that the Bush deal with North Korea is essentially the same as the deal that Clinton brokered with them when he was in office.

 

[AndrewC]

Yes... but what happened to give peace a chance? You two seem a little disappointed. What's the matter? Did you buy up defense stock in expectation of war? Sorry, maybe peace does have a chance. If only a small one.

 

[jfuh]

Funny how our resident neocons are not screaming how this recent diplomatic break through was selling out to NK.
Japan in it again though, Japan, more specifically nationalist Japan, is the greatest threat to the regional stability - the Japanese government is riddled with nationalists as well as former imperialists.

 

[Kandahar]

Have we lost our balls? Why are we dealing with terrorist regimes like North Korea? Didn't Pres. Bush say they were part of the Axis of Evil? We dont negotiate with evil remember? I can't wait to see how they'll blame this one on the democrats.

What is the alternative? Bomb the crap out of them and watch Seoul or Tokyo get nuked? Or just ignore them and pretend that the problem doesn't exist at all?

 

[Kandahar]

Funny how our resident neocons are not screaming how this recent diplomatic break through was selling out to NK.
Japan in it again though, Japan, more specifically nationalist Japan, is the greatest threat to the regional stability - the Japanese government is riddled with nationalists as well as former imperialists.

You've gotta be kidding me. Japan is no threat to regional stability. Even the idea of being constitutionally allowed to deploy troops abroad is very contentious in Japan. Is there any other country in the world that doesn't claim that right?

 

[AndrewC]

Funny how our resident neocons are not screaming how this recent diplomatic break through was selling out to NK.
Japan in it again though, Japan, more specifically nationalist Japan, is the greatest threat to the regional stability - the Japanese government is riddled with nationalists as well as former imperialists.

I don't really see how you came to that conclusion. Given that Japan is not responsible for their own defense. Yet they are flanked by nations still angry over the occupation and with large modern military. Anyway, any nation with people like the picture below is a threat to no one.

Crisscross

 

[jfuh]

You've gotta be kidding me. Japan is no threat to regional stability. Even the idea of being constitutionally allowed to deploy troops abroad is very contentious in Japan. Is there any other country in the world that doesn't claim that right?

North Korea is a dog on a leash. It can't do anything without China giving the green light. Though the nuke test definitely was not given the go ahead but it's also one reason 1. we didn't hear any rambling from lil kim after the test; 2. faced severe consequences from China's supply line from the Manchurian provinces; finally 3. so quickly after years of stalemate a diplomatic solution has been reached.

Now why is Nationalist Japan an issue?? Think of it as Germany proclaiming nazi fascism over and over. How well would that have sat with the soviet Union or US? It wouldn't.
Each time their pm goes to Yasukuni is the same as a german pm visiting a church in honor of Hitler and other countless soldiers in the german army who were convicted and labeled as Class A war criminals. The Osaka courts have deemed such visits by the pm to be unconstitutional.
Then it's the gradual militarization even though article 9 in Japan's constitution clearly states such actions are illegal. Even though there is an article 9 however many prominent ppl of the government are calling for the article to be voided.
All this leads to unrest and further hatred within the region against the former axis power.
If we look at past trends, in particular the year before during the 60th anniversary of the end of the war and again Japan's pm visits the shrine, what happened? A week or two later NK tests another long range missile.
This year is the 70's anniversary of the rape of Nanking, Japan still refuses to even acknowledge this historical fact - it is such overtures that cause the greatest amount of resentment and hatred for Japan today from neighboring countries - N. & S. Korea, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, ect. Building up hatred only leads to further escalations of any problems.
Today, Japan has stated it won't support the 6 party talks brokerage. Why? Because a few of it's citizens had been abducted in the past? It couldn't have been a more bs reason than that.

 

[RightOfCenter]

North Korea is a dog on a leash. It can't do anything without China giving the green light. Though the nuke test definitely was not given the go ahead but it's also one reason 1. we didn't hear any rambling from lil kim after the test; 2. faced severe consequences from China's supply line from the Manchurian provinces; finally 3. so quickly after years of stalemate a diplomatic solution has been reached.

Now why is Nationalist Japan an issue?? Think of it as Germany proclaiming nazi fascism over and over. How well would that have sat with the soviet Union or US? It wouldn't.
Each time their pm goes to Yasukuni is the same as a german pm visiting a church in honor of Hitler and other countless soldiers in the german army who were convicted and labeled as Class A war criminals. The Osaka courts have deemed such visits by the pm to be unconstitutional.
Then it's the gradual militarization even though article 9 in Japan's constitution clearly states such actions are illegal. Even though there is an article 9 however many prominent ppl of the government are calling for the article to be voided.
All this leads to unrest and further hatred within the region against the former axis power.
If we look at past trends, in particular the year before during the 60th anniversary of the end of the war and again Japan's pm visits the shrine, what happened? A week or two later NK tests another long range missile.
This year is the 70's anniversary of the rape of Nanking, Japan still refuses to even acknowledge this historical fact - it is such overtures that cause the greatest amount of resentment and hatred for Japan today from neighboring countries - N. & S. Korea, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, ect. Building up hatred only leads to further escalations of any problems.
Today, Japan has stated it won't support the 6 party talks brokerage. Why? Because a few of it's citizens had been abducted in the past? It couldn't have been a more bs reason than that.

If it isn't the abducted citizens then what do you think is the reason they won't participate?

 

[jfuh]

I don't really see how you came to that conclusion. Given that Japan is not responsible for their own defense. Yet they are flanked by nations still angry over the occupation and with large modern military. Anyway, any nation with people like the picture below is a threat to no one.

Crisscross

The picture is funny. However one must ask, why are the nations flanking Japan still so angry about the occupation or something that happened more than half a century ago?
Ppl such as those in Akihabara or those in Harajiku are no threat to anyone but perhaps themselves. However that is not how Japan is viewed by it's neighbors, instead this is how they are viewed.
images a bit too graphic so click at your own digression.
1; 2; 3; 4; 5
America has forgotten about just how horrible these events are for many political, ethnic reasons, also the fact that we dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.
However the peoples in that region have not forgotten. Many victims are still alive today - Japan has still refused to respond to these issues. Hence, the destabilization factor, as well as what I noted earlier to Kandahar.

 

[jfuh]

If it isn't the abducted citizens then what do you think is the reason they won't participate?

Very honestly, I don't know. However one reason that I can assume would be this.
Japan's government, led by PM Abe, has recently been pushing to void article 9 of it's constitution - source. Though not by any means supported by Japanese citizens, we also know Japan is hardly a democracy. For Japan to void it's article 9 it would need US acceptance and nod. When NK pushed out the inspectors, followed by long range missile tests and then a nuke blast, this campaign got quite the push. However this brokerage represents the exact opposite of a means to achieve the goals. Thus my speculation is it has something to do with the campaign of voiding article 9. But again I can not honestly say what it is or why it is.
However if the past history is any indication of intent; ie WWI; the abduction or even assassination of a few civilians is hardly reason for a nation to make such decisions - they are merely excuses for something much broader behind the scenes.
Japan today is using NK as an excuse to void the peace clause. Take away the threat, what other reason would there be to void article 9?

 

[Hatuey]

What is the alternative? Bomb the crap out of them and watch Seoul or Tokyo get nuked? Or just ignore them and pretend that the problem doesn't exist at all?

AH! So the truth comes out. We do negociate with terrorists.

 

[Jay R]

Japan's unwillingness to accept the crimes of the Imperialist era is problematic because, as Germany has proven, acceptance and understanding of the past is crucial to preventing such abuses in the future. That said, the surrounding Asian nations also need a lesson in acceptance as the western European nations had with Germany, and the understanding that Japan today is very different from Japan of 70 years ago. Again, those who think that the people of Japan can be held responsible for the crimes of their grandfathers are mistaken. All that being said, Japan is probably the least militarised nation in the industrialised world, a fact that should be applauded and encouraged. Allowing North Korea to get a free pass in relation to its kidnapping operations is only going to undermine Japans pacifism and stoke up nationalist sentiments, the result of which will be Japan reasserting its right to national defences.

In regards to the visiting to the shrine, yes there are names there of men who committed war crimes. Just as I'm sure the Vietnam memorial bears the names of men whose conduct in that war was less than honourable. And the Cenotaph honours all those who lost their lives, I'm sure a few engaged in less than noble conduct during various conflicts. Indeed, it can be argued that the men accused of war crimes were only a result of the refusal of both the japanese military and the US to level those charges at the Emperor himself, who was certainly aware of his forces conduct, and is likely to have ordered it.

 

[Kandahar]

AH! So the truth comes out. We do negociate with terrorists.

There's a difference between negotiating with a ragtag band of disorganized criminals whose very purpose for existing is our destruction, versus negotiating with a violent government that is our enemy but isn't necessarily dedicated to our destruction.

Of course we should and do negotiate with the latter. Especially when they have nuclear weapons.

 

[Hatuey]

There's a difference between negotiating with a ragtag band of disorganized criminals whose very purpose for existing is our destruction, versus negotiating with a violent government that is our enemy but isn't necessarily dedicated to our destruction.

Of course we should and do negotiate with the latter. Especially when they have nuclear weapons.

Whatever it's a double standard on behalf of this goverment. We didn't even hesitate to attack Saddam under the pretext that he had stockpiles of WMDs. We called him a threat to the U.S. and the world. All these allegations were proven to be without merit or just false. NK on the other had has proven it is a threat to the world and would not hesitate to attack any of it's neighbourghs. All the sudden the U.S. is a diplomatic nation that is willing to compromise with terrorist regimes. It's all bullshit.

 

[Kandahar]

Whatever it's a double standard on behalf of this goverment.

Every international situation is unique and complex. There are very few "double standards," because two situations are almost always incomparable.

We didn't even hesitate to attack Saddam under the pretext that he had stockpiles of WMDs. We called him a threat to the U.S. and the world. All these allegations were proven to be without merit or just false.

Right...and that was obviously a mistake. That just proves the point that it's often better to negotiate with hostile governments than to bomb the crap out of them.

NK on the other had has proven it is a threat to the world and would not hesitate to attack any of it's neighbourghs.

I think that the fact that it HASN'T attacked its neighbors proves that it WOULD hesitate.

All the sudden the U.S. is a diplomatic nation that is willing to compromise with terrorist regimes. It's all bullshit.

What is your alternative plan? Pretend North Korea doesn't exist, or bomb them?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Whatever it's a double standard on behalf of this goverment. We didn't even hesitate to attack Saddam under the pretext that he had stockpiles of WMDs. We called him a threat to the U.S. and the world. All these allegations were proven to be without merit or just false. NK on the other had has proven it is a threat to the world and would not hesitate to attack any of it's neighbourghs. All the sudden the U.S. is a diplomatic nation that is willing to compromise with terrorist regimes. It's all bullshit.

Translation:
I hate this President and the administration for not negotiating with Iraq (nevermind the 17 UN resolutions) and entering into this war. Now, with NK, I hate this President and the administration for negotiating and not attacking.

Make up your mind.

 

[Hatuey]

Translation:
I hate this President and the administration for not negotiating with Iraq (nevermind the 17 UN resolutions) and entering into this war. Now, with NK, I hate this President and the administration for negotiating and not attacking.

Make up your mind.

LOL You've proven how little you actually understand the point I'm trying make. This administration has proven itself to be nothing more then a big chickenhawk. We're currently facing a country actually threatening world peace and our response is "Diplomacy". BTW when are you going to get over the fact that I dont hate Bush? I actually like him. He's old school.

 

[Kandahar]

LOL You've proven how little you actually understand the point I'm trying make. This administration has proven itself to be nothing more then a big chickenhawk. We're currently facing a country actually threatening world peace and our response is "Diplomacy". BTW when are you going to get over the fact that I dont hate Bush? I actually like him. He's old school.

Perhaps the reason that no one understands your point is because you haven't explained what you would do instead. What should we do instead of negotiate?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

LOL You've proven how little you actually understand the point I'm trying make.

Or how inept you were at making it...

This administration has proven itself to be nothing more then a big chickenhawk.

Pointless liberal catch phrase - right out of the manual.

We're currently facing a country actually threatening world peace and our response is "Diplomacy".

First, yes, just like Iraq. Stay tuned.

BTW when are you going to get over the fact that I dont hate Bush? I actually like him. He's old school.

Maybe you're right. Jealous is the more accurate word.

 

[RightinNYC]

Funny how our resident neocons are not screaming how this recent diplomatic break through was selling out to NK.
Japan in it again though, Japan, more specifically nationalist Japan, is the greatest threat to the regional stability - the Japanese government is riddled with nationalists as well as former imperialists.

Supporting the war in Iraq does not mean that one has to logically support war in Iran or NK. Attacking NK would mean the instant death of 3-8 million people. There's absolutely no way it will ever happen. Thus, we have to consider different options with NK than with Iraq.

 

[Hatuey]

Supporting the war in Iraq does not mean that one has to logically support war in Iran or NK. Attacking NK would mean the instant death of 3-8 million people. There's absolutely no way it will ever happen. Thus, we have to consider different options with NK than with Iraq.

Translation : Chickenhawks.

 

[Hatuey]

Maybe you're right. Jealous is the more accurate word.

Of a guy who's made more mistakes in 6 short years then I could in my entire lifetime? I dont think so.

 

[RightinNYC]

Translation : Chickenhawks.

Do you even know what that word means?

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the policy of supporting regime change in Iraq, but realizing that a similar endeavor cannot be undertaken in NK because of the threat to Seoul.

Perhaps you were looking for this word?

Realpolitik (German: real ("realistic", "practical" or "actual") and Politik ("politics")) is a term used to describe politics based on strictly practical rather than ideological notions, and practiced without any "sentimental illusions".

 

[Hatuey]

Do you even know what that word means?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the policy of supporting regime change in Iraq, but realizing that a similar endeavor cannot be undertaken in NK because of the threat to Seoul.

Perhaps you were looking for this word?

I use it in the literary meaning of the word. It's a flimsy bird that attacks weaker birds but becomes a punk infront of anything bigger then a chihuahua.