|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Captain Corea probably supports Chinese occupation of Tibet, and would support the Soviet Union being an entity. At least that's what his "logic" dictates. |
Should most of Arizona and half of New Mexico belong to the Navaho? |
Depends on what the people living there want. |
So what do the people living on the Liancourt Rocks want? |
Zzzzing!
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That's right, history didn't start until 1905.
Good to know. lol |
What an asinine comment. How about you quit being a smart ass and actually post something with substance? A map or a document perhaps? Do you have anything whatsoever? I'm waiting... |
You trotted out the asinine theory that islets are Japan's because they took them from nobody in 1905. As if NO ONE had used them or lived on them in the previous history.
In one of the most densely populated regions of the world, somehow these islets escaped use. They were virgin territory, right?
But, it's no surprise that your argument has so quickly devolved into name calling. That's par for the course for your online escapades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That's right, history didn't start until 1905.
Good to know. lol |
What an asinine comment. How about you quit being a smart ass and actually post something with substance? A map or a document perhaps? Do you have anything whatsoever? I'm waiting... |
You trotted out the asinine theory that islets are Japan's because they took them from nobody in 1905. As if NO ONE had used them or lived on them in the previous history.
In one of the most densely populated regions of the world, somehow these islets escaped use. They were virgin territory, right?
But, it's no surprise that your argument has so quickly devolved into name calling. That's par for the course for your online escapades. |
Visitorq is correct. Under int'l law, Japan's case is stronger. 1905 is the first date Takeshima was discovered by anyone. That anyone was the claimant, Japan. Visitorq even had the applicable legal theory named: terra nullius. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They can't support human settlement. No one has ever lived on the islands. One spring produces half a barrel of brine water a day. You cannot live off brine water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That's right, history didn't start until 1905.
Good to know. lol |
What an asinine comment. How about you quit being a smart ass and actually post something with substance? A map or a document perhaps? Do you have anything whatsoever? I'm waiting... |
You trotted out the asinine theory that islets are Japan's because they took them from nobody in 1905. As if NO ONE had used them or lived on them in the previous history.
In one of the most densely populated regions of the world, somehow these islets escaped use. They were virgin territory, right?
But, it's no surprise that your argument has so quickly devolved into name calling. That's par for the course for your online escapades. |
Visitorq is correct. Under int'l law, Japan's case is stronger. 1905 is the first date Takeshima was discovered by anyone. That anyone was the claimant, Japan. Visitorq even had the applicable legal theory named: terra nullius. |
You're seriously saying that NO ONE had used those islands prior to 1905? That NO ONE, in this densely packed part of our planet, was able to see and visit those islands until 1905??
That makes absolutely no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That's right, history didn't start until 1905.
Good to know. lol |
What an asinine comment. How about you quit being a smart ass and actually post something with substance? A map or a document perhaps? Do you have anything whatsoever? I'm waiting... |
You trotted out the asinine theory that islets are Japan's because they took them from nobody in 1905. As if NO ONE had used them or lived on them in the previous history.
In one of the most densely populated regions of the world, somehow these islets escaped use. They were virgin territory, right?
But, it's no surprise that your argument has so quickly devolved into name calling. That's par for the course for your online escapades. |
Visitorq is correct. Under int'l law, Japan's case is stronger. 1905 is the first date Takeshima was discovered by anyone. That anyone was the claimant, Japan. Visitorq even had the applicable legal theory named: terra nullius. |
You're seriously saying that NO ONE had used those islands prior to 1905? That NO ONE, in this densely packed part of our planet, was able to see and visit those islands until 1905??
That makes absolutely no sense. |
That's fine. I really don't want to get bogged down in this thread. Its very easy to reject the jurisdiction of int'l courts b/c both countries must voluntarily submit to their jurisdiction. But the evidence I've seen supports Japan's claims under int'l law. Not that int'l law has any actual sway over these Asian island spats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That's right, history didn't start until 1905.
Good to know. lol |
What an asinine comment. How about you quit being a smart ass and actually post something with substance? A map or a document perhaps? Do you have anything whatsoever? I'm waiting... |
You trotted out the asinine theory that islets are Japan's because they took them from nobody in 1905. As if NO ONE had used them or lived on them in the previous history.
In one of the most densely populated regions of the world, somehow these islets escaped use. They were virgin territory, right?
But, it's no surprise that your argument has so quickly devolved into name calling. That's par for the course for your online escapades. |
Visitorq is correct. Under int'l law, Japan's case is stronger. 1905 is the first date Takeshima was discovered by anyone. That anyone was the claimant, Japan. Visitorq even had the applicable legal theory named: terra nullius. |
You're seriously saying that NO ONE had used those islands prior to 1905? That NO ONE, in this densely packed part of our planet, was able to see and visit those islands until 1905??
That makes absolutely no sense. |
You make no sense. Your conjecture on the matter is utterly meaningless. You haven't offered even a single shred of proof about anyone using the islands. In fact you haven't offered anything period.
Regardless, even if Korean or Japanese fishermen had been using the islets from time to time (possible, but again you have zero proof) it is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is who first claimed the territory. That is Japan - and the historical record is quite clear on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Captain Corea probably supports Chinese occupation of Tibet, and would support the Soviet Union being an entity. At least that's what his "logic" dictates. |
Should most of Arizona and half of New Mexico belong to the Navaho? |
Depends on what the people living there want. |
So what do the people living on the Liancourt Rocks want? |
You might ask the Japanese fishermen who used to use the islands (part of Japanese territory) before being chased off and shot at by the Korean military subsequent to its illegal annexation after WWII...
Beyond that, since there's nobody actually living there, the territory should just default back to the Japanese government under international law.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
You make no sense. Your conjecture on the matter is utterly meaningless. You haven't offered even a single shred of proof about anyone using the islands. In fact you haven't offered anything period. |
There ya go. EVERY opinion that runs counter to yours is garbage. Good to see you trotting out that old line.
Yes, I'm sure it makes sense to you that the closest Japanese island is 157 km away, and the closest Korean island is 87km away, yet JAPANESE MUST OWN it.. because of a 1905 claim. That there is NO WAY Koreans (or their ancestors) used that island before the Japanese "found" it and claimed it.
Yeah, tons of sense there.
| Quote: |
| Regardless, even if Korean or Japanese fishermen had been using the islets from time to time (possible, but again you have zero proof) it is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is who first claimed the territory. That is Japan - and the historical record is quite clear on this. |
Funny, because fishermen quickly become relevant in your next post.
| visitorq wrote: |
You might ask the Japanese fishermen who used to use the islands (part of Japanese territory) before being chased off and shot at by the Korean military subsequent to its illegal annexation after WWII...
Beyond that, since there's nobody actually living there, the territory should just default back to the Japanese government under international law. |
Oh, I get it. It's only if it proves your point. If it run counter to your point, then it doesn't matter. Got it.
To anyone who's interested, Wiki has a long article on the dispute, and it's obvious that both sides have claims.
What's even more obvious is that the ROK is in possession of it. So if anyone's wanting to take it away - go and try.
Have at it.
Good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter if Japan claimed it in 1905
ALL of Japan's overseas possessions INCLUDING DOKDO were stripped from it after 1945.
It only gets back what the winning side decided to give them.
| Quote: |
Korea claims that its territorial title to Liancourt Rocks was returned to Korea with the surrender of Japan which was enforced by Supreme Commander for Allied Powers' prohibitions suspending Japanese access to within 12 miles (19 km) from said island [99] which needs to be explicitly revoked in order to effect a change [100]. Such a change modifying the status of Liancourt Rocks has never occurred before "SCAP transferred its jurisdiction... to the United States Army Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946." The U.S. Military Government in Korea, in turn, reverted all jurisdiction over Liancourt Rocks to the Government of South Korea when it launched on August 15, 1948.[101] South Korea's President Rhee Syngman's announcement of the Peace Line enforced Korea's territorial title to Liancourt Rocks.
|
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute#cite_note-99
(bolding mine)
As we see Japan was explictly forbidden to approach within 12 miles of Liancourt Rocks. If LR was considered Japanese territory...such a restriction would not have made any sense.
Moreover the jurisdiction was granted to Korea by the U.S Military government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Captain Corea: Quit being such a whiner. If you have anything of substance to post (like a map, or any documentation that can be discussed), go ahead. Otherwise, stop being such a big baby.
TUM: Actually, that ruling was explicitly rendered null and void by the Treaty of San Francisco. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/treatment.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes but Korea was not a signatory to that treaty.
And even afterwards there were still doubts raised
| Quote: |
| In response to the bombing incident, the US Embassy to Japan in Tokyo transmitted a message including the following on October 3, 1952, to the US State Department, "The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State... There exists a fair chance that... American bombs may cause loss of life... which will bring the Korean efforts to recapture these islands into more prominent play, and may involve the United States unhappily in the implications of that effort." [149] |
(Bolding mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute
And currently they are apparently regarded by the U.S as Korean territory.
| Quote: |
| The same change that classified Liancourt Rocks as Undesignated Sovereignty in the BGN database was reversed on July 30 under the order of U.S. President George W. Bush, once again marking the status of Liancourt Rocks under South Korean control.[168][169][170][171][172] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea: Quit being such a whiner. If you have anything of substance to post (like a map, or any documentation that can be discussed), go ahead. Otherwise, stop being such a big baby. |
Ah, name calling now? Ok, stop being such a douche and realize that there are obviously two sides to this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea: Quit being such a whiner. If you have anything of substance to post (like a map, or any documentation that can be discussed), go ahead. Otherwise, stop being such a big baby. |
Ah, name calling now? Ok, stop being such a douche and realize that there are obviously two sides to this. |
There may be two sides, but not from you. You contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever, as usual. It's because you simply haven't the brains to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
