|
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 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Its funny. if Japan had posession and Korea tried to get this to the international court or send a ship there these guys would be behind japan and trashing Korea. Just like now. Goofballs blinded by hate and anger. Korea owns it and I hope they do tak posession of those Japanese ships if they enter Korean waters illegally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Japan��s hegemonic ambitions. |
Haha, imperialist Japan up to it's old tricks again, this time sailing near to two Korean rocks. They'll be bombing Pearl Harbour again next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm on Japan's side as regards ownership of Dokdo. They make better stewards of the place.
Currently korea is referring to it as "korea's special economic area". What this means is that they intend to completely trash it to make some quick money, same way they've ruined and concreted over every other picturesque and wildlife-rich area of the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
i'm on Japan's side as regards ownership of Dokdo. They make better stewards of the place.
Currently korea is referring to it as "korea's special economic area". What this means is that they intend to completely trash it to make some quick money, same way they've ruined and concreted over every other picturesque and wildlife-rich area of the country. |
And Japanese factory fishing is as peachy clean and soft on the environment as silken wetwipes on a baby's rear end? Thank god that idiots like you don't get to make decisions on international territorial disputes based purely on subjective malarkey or the kind that you have posited. I say take it to the ICJ and let them decide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. Dokdo has been Korean since the time of Shilla, when it was conquered by Shilla. |
By 'conquered' you mean that Korea sent troops to the island to 'occupy' it? Did that happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| they know they have no legitimate claim. |
If Korea is so adamant that its claim is legitimate, why are they so reluctant to take it to international arbitration? |
Because they shouldnt have to. Would the US agree to go to arbitration if Russia suddenly wanted Alaska back? No bloody way in hell. They would do the exact same thing: defend Alaska with force if needed. |
Right. Although it's tempting to vent our frustrations at Korean nationalism by suggesting Japan has a good claim, I don't think there's honestly any good case to be made for it, unless I suppose you suscribe to Itaewon's or Rapier's reasoning, which I most certainly cannot.
Korea owned it until five years before the Japanese occupation, and took it back after WWII. It truly is ���ѹα��� ��. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaganath69 wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
i'm on Japan's side as regards ownership of Dokdo. They make better stewards of the place.
Currently korea is referring to it as "korea's special economic area". What this means is that they intend to completely trash it to make some quick money, same way they've ruined and concreted over every other picturesque and wildlife-rich area of the country. |
And Japanese factory fishing is as peachy clean and soft on the environment as silken wetwipes on a baby's rear end? Thank god that idiots like you don't get to make decisions on international territorial disputes based purely on subjective malarkey or the kind that you have posited. I say take it to the ICJ and let them decide. |
You obviously haven't travelled around korea much you teat. I happen to be on one of its far flung islands as i speak, and have been round most of the country and many islands with a special interest in the environment, and seen first hand the sort of "development" they plan for places of natural beauty.
get out of seoul and stop talking out your ARRSSSS you tube. now be a good boy and don't bother me again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| i'm on Japan's side as regards ownership of Dokdo. They make better stewards of the place. Currently korea is referring to it as "korea's special economic area". What this means is that they intend to completely trash it to make some quick money, same way they've ruined and concreted over every other picturesque and wildlife-rich area of the country. |
Wow, thanks for the lesson in jurisprudence, Rapier.
So by your logic, if Bob and Bill are arguing over ownership of a house, all Bob has to do is prove that he would take better care of the house than Bill would, and then the judge awards the house to Bob. Forget about who paid what or signed which document. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| jaganath69 wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
i'm on Japan's side as regards ownership of Dokdo. They make better stewards of the place.
Currently korea is referring to it as "korea's special economic area". What this means is that they intend to completely trash it to make some quick money, same way they've ruined and concreted over every other picturesque and wildlife-rich area of the country. |
And Japanese factory fishing is as peachy clean and soft on the environment as silken wetwipes on a baby's rear end? Thank god that idiots like you don't get to make decisions on international territorial disputes based purely on subjective malarkey or the kind that you have posited. I say take it to the ICJ and let them decide. |
You obviously haven't travelled around korea much you teat. I happen to be on one of its far flung islands as i speak, and have been round most of the country and many islands with a special interest in the environment, and seen first hand the sort of "development" they plan for places of natural beauty.
get out of seoul and stop talking out your ARRSSSS you tube. now be a good boy and don't bother me again. |
First, if you care to read my location, I'm in the midlands, not in Seoul, never lived there, never have. Have travelled from coast to sunny coast here in my 3 years. I merely commented that your grounds for territorial claim to Dokdo were baseless and irrelevant. Still remains that way. Stop bothering you? If you continue to make idiotic statements on the www, someone will hold you accountable for your verbal tripe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gypsyfish wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
That pretty much sums it up. But, seriously, did any of you actually need to read that first to understand the situation?
1. Dokdo has been Korean since the time of Shilla, when it was conquered by Shilla.
2. Japan's claim is based solely on events associated with its annexation of Korea.
3. No-brainer. |
tell that to tibet, Isreal, USA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, ZIMBABWAE, BLAR BLAR BLAR BLAR...
JAPAN owned it. and during the past 100 years where land ownership pretty much got settled and what you now have you owned! KOREA LOST IT!
its japans! doesnt matter if Korea owned it pre colonization!
Japan kept it once they left and its only been the last 10 years korea decided it wants it back!
TIBET!! thats a story!! not a pile of rocks in the ocean!
they can just split the rocks.. you take the left side and we take the right
china gonna give tibet back?
china gonna give manchuria back!?
what about the russians with their land ownership over ummm forget the name ukraine? or something..
this is a joke!!!
DOKDO belongs to JAPAN now!!
until another war breaks land remains with who had it last |
So you're ranting that Tibet should belong to China?
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan doesn't specifically mention the disposition of Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks, as it was also known, just as it didn't mention other Korean islands that are not disputed today. After the treaty was signed, though, the US Air Force requested permission from Korea when they needed to land there.
It still sounds like Korea's right this time. And, since they are physically occupying the island, (possession being nine tenths of the law) it only reinforces their claim.
I'm not an apologist. I think the whole East Sea thing is silly. Ditto the Korea/Corea thing. But I'm not so blinded by hate that I can't see who is right here.
(And I don't really think that you believe that China should occupy TIBET.) (Ooooh, I like capital letters, too.) |
DUH!! I am saying.. TIBET should be returned !! but china wont do it!!
of course tibet should be returned to its people!
but they wont.. becuase they ganined it during a war! and the chinese are thionking well its ours now..
in war countries lose land! and other countries gain land!
the ones that lose it want it back! and the ones that gain it.. dont want to give it back!!
same goes for DOKDO!
as I said.. its in the middle. korea should fish on the right handside and japan can fish on the left hand side.. and the ROCKS let korea have it! they will cry about it if they dont get it..
jesus they burn themselves and cut off fingers..
I mean car bombs on the GAZA strip I understand! we are talking about LAND!! a couple rocks floating in the ocean!! PLEEEEEEASE!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I say take it to the ICJ and let them decide.
|
There's not much point to that. As Korea currently controls and owns it. The only way that Japan will get it back is through conflict or support by a bigger state and knowing koreans that would still be through conflict.
So its fait acompli in regards to korea, I understand the koreans concern, but if they really want to hold it. Then turn it into a submarine base and its pretty much set in stone for a few more years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| gypsyfish wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
That pretty much sums it up. But, seriously, did any of you actually need to read that first to understand the situation?
1. Dokdo has been Korean since the time of Shilla, when it was conquered by Shilla.
2. Japan's claim is based solely on events associated with its annexation of Korea.
3. No-brainer. |
tell that to tibet, Isreal, USA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, ZIMBABWAE, BLAR BLAR BLAR BLAR...
JAPAN owned it. and during the past 100 years where land ownership pretty much got settled and what you now have you owned! KOREA LOST IT!
its japans! doesnt matter if Korea owned it pre colonization!
Japan kept it once they left and its only been the last 10 years korea decided it wants it back!
TIBET!! thats a story!! not a pile of rocks in the ocean!
they can just split the rocks.. you take the left side and we take the right
china gonna give tibet back?
china gonna give manchuria back!?
what about the russians with their land ownership over ummm forget the name ukraine? or something..
this is a joke!!!
DOKDO belongs to JAPAN now!!
until another war breaks land remains with who had it last |
So you're ranting that Tibet should belong to China?
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan doesn't specifically mention the disposition of Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks, as it was also known, just as it didn't mention other Korean islands that are not disputed today. After the treaty was signed, though, the US Air Force requested permission from Korea when they needed to land there.
It still sounds like Korea's right this time. And, since they are physically occupying the island, (possession being nine tenths of the law) it only reinforces their claim.
I'm not an apologist. I think the whole East Sea thing is silly. Ditto the Korea/Corea thing. But I'm not so blinded by hate that I can't see who is right here.
(And I don't really think that you believe that China should occupy TIBET.) (Ooooh, I like capital letters, too.) |
DUH!! I am saying.. TIBET should be returned !! but china wont do it!!
of course tibet should be returned to its people!
but they wont.. becuase they ganined it during a war! and the chinese are thionking well its ours now..
in war countries lose land! and other countries gain land!
the ones that lose it want it back! and the ones that gain it.. dont want to give it back!!
same goes for DOKDO!
as I said.. its in the middle. korea should fish on the right handside and japan can fish on the left hand side.. and the ROCKS let korea have it! they will cry about it if they dont get it..
jesus they burn themselves and cut off fingers..
I mean car bombs on the GAZA strip I understand! we are talking about LAND!! a couple rocks floating in the ocean!! PLEEEEEEASE!!!! |
DUH!!?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
TIBET!! thats a story!! not a pile of rocks in the ocean! they can just split the rocks.. you take the left side and we take the right
china gonna give tibet back?
china gonna give manchuria back!?
what about the russians with their land ownership over ummm forget the name ukraine? or something ...
this is a joke!!!
DOKDO belongs to JAPAN now!!
until another war breaks land remains with who had it last |
Interesting you should raise Tibet.
When did Mao invade Tibet?
When did the Korean "war" start in earnest?
Hmmmmmmm ... one in the west, the other the the south east. Didn't China play a role in the Korean war?
Interesting to speculate on whether there'd have been a Korean war had China NOT invaded Tibet.
Anyways, back to Dokdo. Big pile of rocks? People don't actually believe this is it do they? Actually there are said to be large supplies of ... yes ... you guessed it: GAS & OIL deposited in the ocean region.
A bountiful marine life as well  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Tokyo, Seoul scurry to avert islet clash
Ban summons Oshima over survey plan
AP, Staff report
Japanese and South Korean negotiators raced Thursday to avert a clash over disputed islets as Seoul accused Tokyo of neocolonial ambitions and warned of a possible high seas confrontation. Behind-the-scenes talks on a diplomatic solution came even as tensions mounted over a Japanese plan to survey the seabed near the islets, known as Takeshima by Japan and Dokdo by South Korea, which has effectively controlled them since 1954.
The crisis prompted South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon to summon Japanese Ambassador Shotaro Oshima early Thursday to demand a halt to the project. Oshima rejected the same request on April 14 when he was summoned to the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry by South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung Hwan.
Some 20 South Korean gunboats have been dispatched to the area in anticipation of the arrival of Japan Coast Guard survey ships. The South Korean vessels were slated to conduct high seas seizure drills Thursday, but delayed the exercises due to bad weather, said Jang Soo Pyo of the South Korean Coast Guard.
South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Choo Kyu Ho meanwhile warned of a clear possibility of a physical clash and said Japan held the "key" to whether conflict erupts. The South Korean protests were underscored by President Roh Moo Hyun, who accused Tokyo of harboring imperialistic ambitions.
The territorial tiff strikes an especially raw nerve in South Korea, where many consider Japan's claim a leftover from Tokyo's harsh 1910-45 colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula. "There are some people claiming territorial rights to former colonies that were once acquired through a war of aggression," Roh said in a prepared speech at a breakfast prayer meeting of Christian leaders in Seoul.
"We are now in a difficult situation," Roh said. "Problems cannot be solved just by goodwill, and we need wisdom and courage." Government officials in Tokyo continued efforts to defuse diplomatic tensions with Seoul over a disputed area in the Sea of Japan, but were unable to find a way to break the stalemate Thursday evening.
Tokyo was also considering dispatching Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi to Seoul for diplomatic talks, but Seoul did not accept the proposal, Foreign Ministry sources said. During the diplomatic talks, Japan had reportedly said Tokyo would cancel the seabed survey if South Korea drops its plan to propose Korean names for submarine features there during an international conference to decide hydrographic names in June in Germany.
But top South Korean officials rejected the proposal Thursday, making the situations tougher for Tokyo officials seeking a diplomatic solution. Japan planned to collect geographical data and prepare counterproposals for Japanese names, after seeing Seoul's bid to register Korean names.
Given Japan's claims on the Takeshima islets and surrounding EEZ, Seoul's proposals for Korean names would be totally unacceptable, government officials claimed. Under the current plan, the JCG ships would survey and record submarine features by using sonar. The survey, if launched, could be finished in a week under the best weather conditions, JCG officials said.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060421a1.html |
As Jean-Luc once said, "Brinkmanship is a dangerous game."  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Interesting you should raise Tibet.
When did Mao invade Tibet?
When did the Korean "war" start in earnest?
Hmmmmmmm ... one in the west, the other the the south east. Didn't China play a role in the Korean war?
Interesting to speculate on whether there'd have been a Korean war had China NOT invaded Tibet.
: |
WHAT?  |
|
| 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
