Comments on: V for Victory? http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/ Korea... in Blog Format Wed, 3 Dec 2008 04:28:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: MrChips http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-34178 MrChips Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:04:48 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-34178 Well, like I mentioned in an earlier post, historyn no matter who owned what once aupon a time, doesn't really matter much when it comes to an island that is (or was) essentially uninhabited. You leave it you lose it. Question is, what happened in 1952?? If any of the events as related in the link Sewing provided actually happened, Japan could actually have an argument; assuming of course that they can prove there were Japanese on the "Takeshima" in 1952 that were forcibly. If those events happened as that post says and Korea knows that documentation exists to prove it, they would do well to settle the issue quietly and at a bi-lateral level. Someone else mentioned the incongruity of Japan's EEZ claims down around Okinotorishima; what if Korea did something really novel like get together with China and team up on Japan in trying to secure a subsequent agreement to the Maritime Law in a Package deal officially recognizing Japan's territorial control of Okinotorishima but denying their claim to EEZ extension, while at the same time recognizing Korea's territoral control of Dokdo and also denying their claims to using Dokdo as a starting point for their EEZ. Everyone gets something, history is fucked with (assuming '52 stays quiet) and Roh can start worrying about helping refugees out of North Korea. Too much to ask for? Well, like I mentioned in an earlier post, historyn no matter who owned what once aupon a time, doesn’t really matter much when it comes to an island that is (or was) essentially uninhabited. You leave it you lose it. Question is, what happened in 1952?? If any of the events as related in the link Sewing provided actually happened, Japan could actually have an argument; assuming of course that they can prove there were Japanese on the “Takeshima” in 1952 that were forcibly. If those events happened as that post says and Korea knows that documentation exists to prove it, they would do well to settle the issue quietly and at a bi-lateral level.

Someone else mentioned the incongruity of Japan’s EEZ claims down around Okinotorishima; what if Korea did something really novel like get together with China and team up on Japan in trying to secure a subsequent agreement to the Maritime Law in a Package deal officially recognizing Japan’s territorial control of Okinotorishima but denying their claim to EEZ extension, while at the same time recognizing Korea’s territoral control of Dokdo and also denying their claims to using Dokdo as a starting point for their EEZ. Everyone gets something, history is fucked with (assuming ‘52 stays quiet) and Roh can start worrying about helping refugees out of North Korea. Too much to ask for?

]]> By: gbevers http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33851 gbevers Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:31:16 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33851 A suggestion: Next time a Korean tells you that Korea has never invaded a country, you should ask, "What about Takeshima?" It is odd that Koreans can be so sure that Dokdo is historically Korean territory, yet are unable to tell you much about that history. The limit to their knowledge seems to be, "Dokdo has been Korean territory since Shilla" and "Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo." Also, some of them can also sing part of the song, "독도는 우리 땅." The Korean education system seems to use the same methods to teach the history of Dokdo and Japanese-Korean relations as is used to teach a mass-game routine. A suggestion: Next time a Korean tells you that Korea has never invaded a country, you should ask, “What about Takeshima?”

It is odd that Koreans can be so sure that Dokdo is historically Korean territory, yet are unable to tell you much about that history. The limit to their knowledge seems to be, “Dokdo has been Korean territory since Shilla” and “Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo.” Also, some of them can also sing part of the song, “독도는 우리 땅.”

The Korean education system seems to use the same methods to teach the history of Dokdo and Japanese-Korean relations as is used to teach a mass-game routine.

]]> By: judge judy http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33849 judge judy Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:51:40 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33849 you're hilarious, mizar! you’re hilarious, mizar!

]]> By: Mizar5 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33804 Mizar5 Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:43:22 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33804 I have the perfect solution for Dokdo. Since neither side has any undisputable historical evidence to support its claim of ownership, and given the mutual responsibility for poor relations among neigboring countries and sister cultures, joint ownership and stewardship should be awarded to both Japan and Korea. That way, they can learn to work out their issues like good neighbors instead of turning every small news item into high political drama. I have the perfect solution for Dokdo. Since neither side has any undisputable historical evidence to support its claim of ownership, and given the mutual responsibility for poor relations among neigboring countries and sister cultures, joint ownership and stewardship should be awarded to both Japan and Korea. That way, they can learn to work out their issues like good neighbors instead of turning every small news item into high political drama.

]]> By: sewing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33798 sewing Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:57:19 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33798 That comment is worth reading in its entirety (via the link), by the way, because the commentor fills in a lot of the history from the 1950s. It's not a pretty picture. That comment is worth reading in its entirety (via the link), by the way, because the commentor fills in a lot of the history from the 1950s. It’s not a pretty picture.

]]> By: sewing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33797 sewing Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:44:47 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33797 (<a href="http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/2005/03/japan_and_korea.html#comment-4905866" rel="nofollow">Link</a>) (Link)

]]> By: sewing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33796 sewing Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:44:08 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33796 Ah, I found the <i>Sankei Shimbun</i> reference. It comes from a commentor on the Flying Yangban's first post on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. (In the interests of full disclosure—lest he or she thinks I'm misrepresenting him—the commentor appears to take the Japanese side in the debate). Thus, when describing Japanese press reaction to the first flare-up between the two countries in the 1950s, he or she writes: "Curiously, it was the Sankei Shinbun, the parent company of Fusosha (publisher of the history textbook Koreans love to hate), that continued to take the opposite stand in defense of South Korea." The <i>Sankei</i> is, I gather, widely regarded today as the flagship paper of the conservative establishment in Japan. Ah, I found the Sankei Shimbun reference. It comes from a commentor on the Flying Yangban’s first post on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. (In the interests of full disclosure—lest he or she thinks I’m misrepresenting him—the commentor appears to take the Japanese side in the debate). Thus, when describing Japanese press reaction to the first flare-up between the two countries in the 1950s, he or she writes:

“Curiously, it was the Sankei Shinbun, the parent company of Fusosha (publisher of the history textbook Koreans love to hate), that continued to take the opposite stand in defense of South Korea.”

The Sankei is, I gather, widely regarded today as the flagship paper of the conservative establishment in Japan.

]]> By: Robert http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33764 Robert Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:38:42 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33764 You're welcome. We try to provide more around here than just comparative penis stats. You’re welcome. We try to provide more around here than just comparative penis stats.

]]> By: sewing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33763 sewing Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:29:34 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33763 Robert: Thanks for the update and translation, re Hosaka Yuji's commentary on this situation. He makes some good points, ones that have been echoed elsewhere, and ring true. Robert:

Thanks for the update and translation, re Hosaka Yuji’s commentary on this situation. He makes some good points, ones that have been echoed elsewhere, and ring true.

]]> By: thorin http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/04/21/v-for-victory/#comment-33754 thorin Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:02:20 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2747#comment-33754 I'd like to see some more data so we can determine if there's any correlation between penis and ball size. Given the preliminary data on the French, my hypothesis is that there's no such correlation. I’d like to see some more data so we can determine if there’s any correlation between penis and ball size. Given the preliminary data on the French, my hypothesis is that there’s no such correlation.

]]>