Japan, China in WWII

[tokenadult]

[Tare]

Simple: Japan didn't have a lot of wealth, some rice and that was it. However it was historically rich (and also the president at that time were a little more considerate) they were extremely careful not to destroy anything. Still they had a bit of an influence on the Japanese law and they've got a couple of bases. Accoding to the new laws Japan can not have any army of it's own, only a "self-defending force" (whose strength can be shown by the prime minister asking for "the protection" of the self-defending force in Iraq if they were sent there by the U.S. Army). Therefore if anything happens to us (most likely from North Korea) we're all dead until big U.S. comes and saves us. Therefore Clinton and Hashimoto made a treaty (who's name is in Japanese) which practically said U.S. will protect Japan in case of an invasion. At the same time we must do whatever we can do in our power to not get the U.S. even remotely upset or else we'll be completely vulnerable to outside attacks. Just look at how our prime minister agreed completely with the Iraqi War, Bush practically showed that speech as an "example" of how other countries should react towards the war. We can not argue, we must obey. That's why in a sense we're not completely free from the U.S.

Yeah it is a bit radical...some of the extreme long run is just a prediction (though some are relatively accurate like the oil part; although this is under the assumption Bush will continue to be the president)

[confuted]

[mathfanatic]

[MysticTerminator]

I thought it was sort of unspoken but known that Blair would follow Bush in everything... (England would follow USA in most international affairs)

[confuted]

[Tare]

OK, starting from the top:
I'm talking relatively comparing Japanese wealth to Iraqi national wealth. Sure Japan possessed lots of stuff but it doesn't continuously produce wealth and you can't "take" industrial prowess the same way you can take materials. Sure you can steal the knowledge but it'll be very difficult and takes some time.

Fine, I'll rephrase it "they were extremely careful not to destroy anything important"; Sure they destroyed many valuable things but they knew what was the most important: our historical heritage. We can (and did) rebuilt most of the things the U.S. destroyed in that war but we could've never rebuilt historical sites, temples, etc. that Japan has so much. Since it's such a small country with tons of mountains it is hard not to destroy certain things while destroying some.

*ahem* Japanese prime minister himself didn't just say out of the blue "Hey let's get them troops over to Iraq so they can get killed!" That would mean major drop in votes. The U.S. president "asked" or rather pressured him to do it and Koizumi is one of the more timid and obedient prime minister so he's working on it (which will take at least a couple of years: the soonest is somewhere in 2006 even if it does happen)
This is ironic because the U.S. made (or forced depending on where you're looking things from) that article themself.

*ahem* What makes you so sure you know more about Japanese history than a Japanese person eh?

I practically rebuttled every "correction" you had so that second to last sentence loses it's meaning for now.


Actually nowadays some people have come to accept that fact. Even if they don't it is still a fact. Just look at the number and skill level (especially real-life experience) these so-called "soldiers" have (which does not include the ability to build houses/schools/etc., make a public works system, treat sick people, and other things which does not involve actual fighting, killing, and other things which doesn't help humanity)

The resource I have is in Japanese and it's a bit complicated both to understand and to translate (I'm sure there's an English version for it somewhere...pshaw I'm feeling a bit tired writing all this...I'm feeling lazy enough not to translate that thing...*sigh*)

Great Britain has a different circumstances, (well to some extent) they have the freedom to act independently just like France. They chose to support the U.S. Japan cannot do that. I guess it's hard to see the pressure Japanese people feel as an outsider: we practically live under a nuclear threat from a maniac, now if you were under that circumstance wouldn't you support this big country who (says) they'll protect you in case that maniac do something to you?



OK we're way off topic...this is about Iraq not Japan


Who was U.S. ally in this war again? I know France and U.N. in whole isn't but Great Britain, Japan, Poland and Italy is but I forgot the rest...

[Chinaboy]

Japan did do some nasty things to the Chinese. If you said they had nothing during/after the war after they ransacked China, then it puts Japan to a worser image than it has already relating to its conquest over Asia

[Tare]

I didn't say that...I said not a lot which is qualitative anyways...besides the Japanese image for some people can't get any worse, that's how bad they were...

[confuted]

Tare...no. I suppose you're going to tell me the Japanese didn't do that, aren't you? Japan possessed a ton of stuff, including fish. To say that industrial prowess is not a resource is ludicrous - it's the main source of wealth in today's world.

Oh, and we didn't give a crap about preserving Japanese national heritage, just like the Japanese didn't give a crap about preserving U.S. lives. Telling yourself anything else would be stupid. We didn't bomb historical sites because historical sites do not produce airplanes, ships, guns, and troops. They don't produce anything useful, but if one was in the way or had been manufacturing weapons, it would have ceased to exist.

The Japanese prime minister said that the US was an ally that had done much in Iraq to set up a democracy and that it wasn't fair for Japan to stand by and do nothing. Japan has sent troops abroad before, such as in 1992 when they sent troops to East Timor.

Furthermore, the US drafted the Japanese constitution because 1) we won, you lost 2) it was obvious that the Japanese people weren't capable of taking care of themselves without being a threat to world peace. The people of Japan were starving and refused to kill and eat ducks swimming in the ponds because "those are the emperor's ducks." They believed the Emperor was a living God that could do no wrong. Japan fought WWII with two goals: either to conquer new land for its population or to kill off some of its population so that Japan's islands would be sufficient. Obviously they needed a bit of help forming a sensible government that wouldn't threaten the world.

[Tare]

Ugh! I think it's time you moderate yourself confuted, not only was the first part inappropriate, the middle part an insult, and you practically changed everything I said (not the exact word but what I meant by them)


I explicitly said the Japanese were terrible during the war and I do not plan to cover up that fact, I am strong enough to withstand that fact and live with it. Besides our ancestors have nothing to do with who we area anyways.

Fish!?!? Oh great, we're gonna invade Sweden for a fish because fish is so valuable, it's not like the U.S. doesn't have any coastal boundaries. And you say I don't make any sense

don't swear, especially if you're moderating this "serious" forum, geez.

Oh I beg to differ on that one. The U.S. explicitly did not bomb any cultural grounds because "it would make them even more upset and they will be even less willing to surrender" Sure part of it was that it didn't make weapons or have a lot of population but certainly that wasn't all the reason why not to attack them.

If someone's having a war would they be reluctant to kill each other? That's the bary basic of a war isn't it, to kill off all the enemy. If they cared about each other they wouldn't be having a war.

East Timor mission is completely different from Iraq, don't mix the two up. There was different political, religious (yes, religious; some have different religions), and other circumstances which I'm sure you have extensively researched on just like you did with rest of Japanese history.

That's what the Japanese prime minister said, a one little tid-bit of information. First off he is a U.S. supporter and does not represent the feelings of the majority of the Japanese population, that only a Japanese person/a person close to Japan would know/feel and again I'm sure you have a lot of friends/connection in Japan and talk about politics with Japanese people now that the internet have evolved so much.

Oh really. Perhaps if the U.S. had a royal family they'll do the same. (Note: that's a major insult to Japanese people and we're talking something like Jap*1000 here) The first one was true but the second is not. Japan just tried to do what Great Britain or France did, gain colonies, have more land (since Japan is so small and all), and more wealth. Sure they went completely crazy, I wouldn't argue with that , but they didn't try and kill off it's population. In fact they thought of the population as a "supply" so less populations means less work force and ultimately less money. Besides we would've suicided if that was one of the reasons why we fought. (and please don't make references to whales)

Maybe you ought to use dictionary.com on the definition of "rebuttal," as well as these things: ""

The couple of paragraphs after the double space were meant for Neal not you.

Sure, we could sever ties with the U.S. Just as long as no one invades us we'll be fine off. It's not like it's any of your business anyways.

"living under a nuclear threat from a maniac"
Question: Who and what country am I refering to?

You talk a lot about ignorance, yet you still keep on talking about Japan in a thread about Iraq, now if it was Australia and Austria I'd understand but Japan and Iraq aren't even remotely close now are they?

[gauss202]

Let me remind *everyone* that if you're going to discuss politics, which is a very passionate matter for some people, to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions. You might not agree with them, but you have to learn to disagree without making it personal or using insults.

[314159265358979323846]

[Tare]

I believe my parents told me that. They said the U.S. planned very carefully not to destroy any religious or historical sites.

I believe that can be supported since the U.S.'s main goal especially after the V-E Day was to get Japan to surrender, not to kill them all. I think that's why they used the A-bombs even though some of it's effects were still unknown.

Again it is ironic that the UN was established by the US but now the UN is being an obstacle towards the Iraq war...*desperate effort to tie the conversation in and back to Iraq War*...US policies were so much better than...*sigh*

confuted can you please at least split this? Thanks.

[tokenadult]

[confuted]

Tare, the first part was not inapporpriate - it was history. Unless I'm mistaken, the site did not contain any horribly explicit pictures. We will not deny things that happened in the past just because they aren't nice, or because we don't like them, or because the events of the past don't make us think happy thoughts about our nation. I won't tolerate revisionist history.

Fish, are, indeed, a valuable resource.

I didn't swear.

Of course population is essential to manufacturing, but Japan wasn't able to feed all of its people. That means expand or reduce the population.

I know precicely what nation you were referring to with your comment about "nuclear threat from a maniac." What I'm saying is that you are woefully misinformed. It would take something incredibly extreme for the US to use a nuclear weapon in an act of war - which is why we haven't done it since WWII.[/url]

[Ravi B]

Now I'm a bit confused. I thought Tare was referring to the maniac from North Korea, not the maniac from the US.

[confuted]

Surely Kim Jong Il knows that if he nukes anyone, his entire country will be glowing in <12 minutes.

[Tare]

Yeah but he'll still do it, that's why he's a maniac.

I doubt the U.S. will ever use a nuke again, even if Bush was the president.

There were people's heads lined up on the ground. That is inappropriate for AoPS. I am not saying that teaching about these things are inappropriate nor am I trying to revise history (which I am completely against unlike what you're trying to say), however there is a time and place for everything and that picture on a public forum for teenagers about math is not the place, do you see?
My line: If the picture's on rotten, it's inappropriate, period.

Oh I didn't know the c word wasn't a swear...

Japanese people were willing to survive/endure the starvation because we believed (part of us still do believe) in conserving energy and minimizing waste, not to mention to do whatever it takes for the greater good. You see unlike other countries who throw away piles of food or throw it all up, gather fortune for themselves and not really circulate it, and cares more about themselves than others we believe in a more Buddhistic approach of sharing and being a community in whole, people helping each other out. As you can see, that doesn't really mix well with fighting .
Besides I think we would've still fed the population if there were no war.

Heh guess not



By the way the two topics in this thread has nothing (well they're both wars but that's not my point ) to do with each other, I didn't ask for the two to be smushed together into a stew, I asked for it to be seperated so that they don't get all mixed up.

[confuted]

Several posts (most recently TA's) have involved both topics. It would be a huge pain to split.