Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
 

The closer of a piece in The Independent today detailing the catalyst for the current 'you did it first' playground riots between Japan and China.

Reasons the Chinese are peeved with the Japanese (adapted from the article):

1. Nanjing. Japanese troops poured in on 13 December 1937 after suffering heavy casualties in Shanghai. They began a six week orgy of raping, killing and looting which the United Human Rights Council later described as 'the single worst atrocity during the WW2 era'. Witnesses said soldiers practised with bayonets on tied-up prisoners, burnt others alive and set dogs on children. Pregnant women were raped and bayoneted, decapitated heads were put on spikes or waved around like trophies, hundreds of unarmed civilians were mowed down with machine guns and dumped in rivers and open graves. A Chinese-American author who researched and documented these attacks claims that more than 300,000 Chinese died and at least 20,000 women were raped. She committed suicide this year, having 'felt rage' and suffered from nightmares during her research.

2. Unit 731. At the time the most elaborate biological warfare programme ever created, that turned diseases such as typhoid, anthrax, smallpox, cholera and dysentry into mass-produced killers. Atrocities included dissection of live prisoners in an attempt to determine the effects of pathogens on the human body. Yoshio Shinozuka, just 16 at the time, was dispatched by authorities to assist with the experimentation. He recalls: "I knew the Chinese individual we dissected alive. At the vivisection I could not meet his eyes because of the hate in them. He was infected with plague germs and, as the disease took its toll, his face and body became totally black. Still alive, he was brought on a stretcher to the autopsy room, where I was ordered to wash the body... The man's organs were methodically excised one by one." No one has been held to account for this 'research', no one has gone to court. At the time, American military scientists emphasised the 'extreme value' of the intelligence gained, saying "The value to the US of Japanese biological warefare data is of such importance to national security as to far outweigh the value accruing from 'war crime' persecution."

3. Schoolbooks. Japanese children are ignorant of Asian history, thanks to a curriculum that glosses over imperial Japan's brief but brutal colonial adventure. In contrast, every 15 year old in China is taught that wartime Emperor Hirohito's brainwashed troops butchered and looted their way across the country. The difference is stark.

Now there are mass riots, and both sides think the other side should apologise first. Commentators think it could lead to greater conflict.

My hands were shaking typing some of the graphic lines above.

What brought this issue to the forefront right now? Was this unknown before the book, or is the book a catalyst for something that had been simmering for a while? And what is the goal of the rioters?

Of course, China hardly has much standing to complain about historical whitewashing.

I'm not sure "sorry" would cut it.

I saw an interview with Iris Chang (the author of The Rape of Nanking) and she could barely make it through the interview.

I also heard an interview with a representative of the Los Angeles prison system who explained that they have a policy of never putting a Chinese and a Japanese in the same cell. "One of them would be dead in an hour."

The water that separates them is a blessing.

As I understand it, the rioters are using Japan's interest in possibly gaining a seat on the UN Security Council as an opportunity to express their displeasure with Japan's unwillingness to acknowledge its past transgressions. The Japanese textbooks are the just latest insult to the Chinese.

That is horrific. And it raises huge ethical issues. Do you use data that comes from a horribly tainted source like that?

I'm reminded of the medical experimentation the Nazis did on some of their prisoners. Some of the data from those experiments has actually been valuable. Prisoners were put in tubs of ice cold water to see how long they would last, and if they could be revived afterwards. Much of what we know about the effects of cold water exposure comes from that data. Many people died to get that data. Do you throw the data away, or use it?

The difference, of course, is the Nazis were tried for war crimes, and the Japanese haven't faced the music for what they did.

Just ask Bayer aspirin people...

http://www.hannibal.net/stories/0219...ngMengele.html

Know why? The guys in charge of that delightful little operation were given full immunity by the US in exchange for the data.

The reason this came to the forefront now is more short-term political opportunism on the part of the Chinese than anything else, partly the issue of Japan having a permanant seat on the security council, oil pipelines from Russia, oil exploration in a zone right on the border of their economic exclusion zones and regional powergames. Don't forget they did some not-nice things to the Koreans as well, an issue that comes up every time ownership of a group of islands between them comes up. China has actively encouraged this japan hatred of course.

One reason this is coming up now is probably something to do with China's sabre-rattling over Taiwan. China has long felt that Taiwan was its possession, despite the fact that it was given over to Japan in perpetuity as the result of some treaty or other (too busy to google it at the moment). Taiwan wants to be independent, China is more than willing to blow it up to keep that from happening, particularly since the US is tied up in the middle east right now. Not sure if Japan has verbalized any preference in the matter, as Taiwan has been operating fairly autonomously since it changed its name from Formosa (is that right?). However, I wouldn't think that they would support any Chinese land grab.

I don't know how I feel about it. A great number of Taiwanese consider themselves to be Chinese first, Taiwanese second. From what I hear, anyway. In any case, I expect the ChiCom government is escalating the rhetoric in preparation for even more bullying of Taiwan. Because we are strong allies with Japan, they get the double benefit of pissing off old enemies and flipping off the yanks while we are otherwise engaged.

The few Chinese people I have heard from about this consider Taiwan to be Chinese, but have a deep loathing for communism. At the same time, they don't care to have the US get involved - they see it as an internal affair.

If/when China decides to attack Tiawan, would we really get into World War 3 over it? We let China take Hong Kong back when the lease was up. Why not Taiwan? I'm all in favor of trying to use our diplomatic resources to keep Taiwan democratic, but I don't want to get into a war with China over it. We couldn't win that war. I think China knows it.

Belmont Club explained it all five days ago: The US could cut off most of China's oil pretty quickly. Even Taiwan alone, using US-built subs, would easily be able to interrupt critical oil shipping lanes. China has a 30-day reserve of oil; the US has 158 days.

China couldn't win it either. They know it too. Noone wins a war that big these days, particularly when you look at how economically inter-linked the two are. Japan is a vocal supporter of Taiwanese independence.

Glatt - because last I checked, Taiwan wasn't on lease to itself.

Right, it's a stalemate between the USA and China. But China can take Taiwan. If we blockade China's oil deliveries after they invade Taiwan, won't they interpret that as an act of war? The escalation could get nasty pretty quick. They have nukes.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, we were afraid to lock horns with them, because they had nukes. We boycotted their Olympics and gave Stingers to the rebels. China has nukes too. They have Olympics coming up. So we could always do the boycott thing.

I think the USA is bluffing that it will defend Taiwan, and I think China suspects it.

i think china is torn because they see the necessity of being involved in the global economic community, but they want to remain socially closed. so they will sabre rattle to keep up appearances, but going to battle is extremely unlikely.

hong kong was a lease - a legal contract - how could we, or anyone else dispute that.

taiwan - not a lease. they are chinese who are proud of chinese but refuse to fall under the communist system.

do you really believe that Bushco couldn't fire up the American people over a good old fashioned US vs. the Commies conflict? I think the average american ( does not mean socially, fiscally, or politically astute) would welcome the idea. A real enemy? with an army? and planes? and uniforms? not vague muslim tribes? where do we sign up?

Invading China would not be that easy, the US has been selling them some real shiny toys and China still doesn't have a real blue-water naval capability, if the US moved in a couple of fleets the Chinese would essentially be fucked invasion-wise IMHO.

Even if the US doesn't directly get involved there would still be sanctions and the rest of it, there's no way the US could just say 'oh well' and get back to buying cheap chinese toys. No way, particularly considering Bush stupidly blurted out that the US WOULD intervene. If the world boycotted China cChina would colapse, end of story. Capitalism has made china as interdependant as everyone else but with far, far bigger social problems, China will be lucky to get though the next couple of decades without some serious unrest even without this kind of thing.

Of course, there's the nuclear factor. Noone can actually invade china however.

Just. Shut. Up.

I'm reminded of the movie _Beetlejuice_, say it three times and "POOF" it's here! Your satirical remark could easily become reality.

There needn't be any relationship between the reality of the threat and the reality of the blood and treasure spent to rise up against it. Do not suggest such a thing, please.

I'm just really glad we don't have to depend on the draft. Whew! What a relief!

Not in a limited war format. But a full scale declared war with China? That is the type of combat that the Air Force and Navy have been getting wood thinking about for the last 40 years. Squadrons of ATG strikes covered by ATA fighters striking hardened targets to soften them up, working their way inland over a series of weeks and months. Destruction of industrial centers, elimination of transportation systems, preventing trade and resupply, torching fuel depots - all of which would cause China to grind to a halt. aerial elimination of political and social importance. then go to work on massed troops. Ground troops wouldn't enter the picture until clean up phase for the most part. Yep, that is what the Navy and Air Force have been practicing and strategizing over for decades.



mind you - i am not advocating such action - only stating that it wouldn't be that hard if the political animals said "go do what you are trained to do" and then stood back to watch the show.

Oh you can lay waste to the place, true.
It's a quote from somewhere and I'll butcher it but I can't remember where but it went something like this.

If you did it you'd end up with a death toll, no doubt with a fair size percentage of civvies in the hundreds of thousands or millions. That's going to make any democratic government queasy.

Other factor: China has nukes, lots of them, Missile Defence Shielf is cute but it's never going to work in the event of a barrage of a few hundred warheads.

Important wartime safety tip ... if you take prisoners, you have to feed them.

Kill them all.

I'd like to think if you told the US army, instilled as they are with the geneva convention to kill tens of thousands of POWs in cold blood they'd rebel.

Gee, I wonder what else would happen? First, China would turn Hawai'i into a smoldering peice of charcoal. Next up? San Diego then Seattle. There wouldn't be a port on the west coast left. Are you ready to lose five or six carriers and all on board in one day? We have gotten so used to fighting folks on their turf, we forget that China is fully capable of wreaking havoc into the millions in our backyard. And we're supposed to risk all this for the political state of an island? Screw that.

Beating the living shit out of a pissant dictator is one thing but you are talking some serious trash now.

Hang on here.

The US is NOT the world's policeman. I know we keep trying to be, but with the group of folks who are usually level headed, I'm surprised this is even being bantered around.

Taiwan isn't ours.
Japan isn't ours.
China isn't ours.

Now, in light of that, justify invading ANYONE ... ?

Well there is the whole supporting freedom and democracy thing...

In the case of a Taiwan war, it wouldn't be an invasion. It would be the defense of Taiwan against invasion. I doubt it would result in much actual invasion of China, as jaguar's quote indicates.

i am not advocating doing anything. i was only responding to the comment that it would be impossible to do anything. personally, i think it would be ludicrous to go to war over taiwan - when economic carrots and sticks could be just effective in the long run.

Prisoners? What prisoners? Simply reduce China's government and industry centers to slag with nukes and/or heavy conventional bombing. Sink all their shipping and destroy all their aircraft. Then go home and let the local powers duke it out over the pieces. The destruction of China's industry should do much to reduce the price of oil, too.

At least, if the US were the evil empire that some here seem to think, that's the way it would be done.

I don't think there's much disagreement about that. (I'm reasonably confident that) the first military move in that situation would not be made by the US.

Bah. The whole "supporting freedom and democracy" thing was worn to death with we illegally invaded Iraq. Let someone else support it for a change, and stop sending my brothers and sisters to die defending a country that isn't their own.

Don't think that just because we aren't invading China or vice versa that there still might not be significant US casualties. They have missles, remember, and the capability of sinking a carrier that gets too close.

We're not the world's policeman, but we've set the example for what it means to live in a free country, and when another nation wants to shake loose from its "parent" country, we're morally obligated to support them, if our freedom means anything to us. I personally think that the other free countries of the world have the same obligation, but they may not agree. Defending Taiwan in its attempt to be an autonomous nation is a great reason to use our military.

This doesn't quite connect with my simultaneous wish that we would let the rest of the world stew in its own juice and quit bailing out the ungrateful bastards. So I guess I'll have to wait until the situation becomes clearer.

Edit: OC, I hear that. Except for the "illegally invading Iraq" line.

and pick through the radioactive cinders of your hometown. The destruction of china's industry would throw us into a global depression as well. Cheap oil wouldn't even rate on your agenda.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, much of the posturing over Taiwan is the result of internal Chinese politics, they're rather vicious and high-stakes these days. I cannot personally see China voluntarily invading Taiwan unless you had some kind of rogue general scenario, even if china won, china would lose and might not even survive as it is. All the big powers are far too economically interdependent to risk war, it would be a disaster for everyone, it's an unwinable game, probably the biggest hope for peace since MAD.

The fundamental reason that China wants to keep Taiwan under its control is because it's a strategic island right off their coast, which could be used against them very nicely in a large-scale war.

What if Puerto Rico suddenly decided it wanted to be independent? And more importantly, that it wanted to ally with, say, North Korea? I guarantee you our government would not be supporting that "freedom and democracy." Taiwan as a landmass is a liability for China, Taiwan is very friendly with the US, and I honestly find it somewhat unreasonable for us to expect them to just give it up willingly.

Speaking of, I found this funny, don't know if it's true or not....
sent to me by Bruce, I believe....

IIRC, the US gave Puerto Rico a chance at independence. They opted to maintain the status quo of US citizenship with no taxes, for some reason.

To touch on the beginning of this thread, I've been aware of the Rape of Nanking for decades. I've seen it at least refered to, often in detail, in dozens of other readings. And every other company in Germany. They had no choice. Walmart. Avoid talking about the possible scenarios and people will make decisions without considering them. That's not a good idea. You say that like it's a bad thing. :bolt: Treaties. We've been promising to defend Taiwan for almost 60 years. We also have deals with Japan and S. Korea.

I think it would be pretty stupid to go to war over taiwan but that might not stop BushCo. If we were to go against China it probably wouldn't be for Taiwan but some incident further down a chain of events that starts with Taiwan and escalates to a point of fight or flight. Something like a carrier sunk or one of our Pacific Islands obliterated. :(

If you kill them before you capture them, they aren't POWs.

ding ding ding - "lessons from WWII for $800, please Alex."

As far as China goes ... I think that the best approach to a country that has unlimited manpower resources is to find ways to use that to our advantage. Admittedly, patience in fostering governmental change isn't something that we're good at. Not only are we a young country, we're one whose economy is at least partly driven by the impulse purchase.

Despite governmental restrictions on information exchange, there's enough knowledge of what we have in terms of economic advantage, as well as that sometimes undefinable quality known as "freedom" that it becomes attractive to the common man. If 1.3+ Billion people want something, they'll get it.

This is far closer to the reality of those demonstrations. You can be sure that if those demonstrators were campaigning for democracy, the police would have stopped them cold.

The Chinese do have a point about how Japanese history is taught in Japan. I was rather surprised to learn the USS Arizona is a most popular tourist attraction for Japanese. In Japan, Pearl Harbor is not taught as a surprise attack and is a rather curious popular destination for Japanese tourists. The Rape of Nanking is also not taught.

But China does have an agenda here. A realigned Security Council should include the world's #2 and #3 economies - Japan and Germany. The current six permanent Security Council members are not keen to share power. Again, China remains suspicious of Japanese motives.

Yes there are other factors in these demonstrations. And lets not forget where more than 50% of the world's known plutonium is currently housed.

However there are too many posts here that portray China as a monolithic and evil power. Same reasoning used to claim Saddam was a threat to anyone. China, like so many other nations, is a congruence of forces. Some are very sympathetic to US interests. Others more suspicious. Was it an accident that US warplanes hit the China embassy exactly in the room where all Chinese intelligence would be collected? The same people are asking why US planes accidentally hit Al Jesera offices in both Baghdad and Kabul when such attacks would be most beneficial to US propaganda. Chinese have good reason to both be suspicious of and want to be close friends of America. There is no monolithic 'good' or 'evil' power in China - as some have posted here.

And lets not forget how dependent the US is now on China. The George Jr administration is so wildly spending away the 'fiscal responsible' gains of both the George Sr and Clinton administrations. China now controls a mountain of US cash to the benefit of America. It would take very little for China to massively undermine the US economy by dumping dollars. China has that many dollars, and is one of the largest reasons why the US dollar remains so strong and stable.

Those who monolithically promote China as an enemy should first learn how much China has been doing to maintain good US relations.

*imitation of Fred Rogers*

Can you say Cuba? Sure, I knew you could!

/Fred Rogers

I seem to recall Cuba being only 90 miles off OUR coast, allying itself with the then-Soviet Union, our mortal enemy. We didn't invade or even attack. Of course, it's still communist and under the control of a defiant Fidel Castro but so what? If Taiwan is taken back by China, all the computer manufacturers will go elsewhere and China will be stuck with another Hong Kong. Big Yip. I won't lose sleep over it.

I think the US will rattle it's saber some, impose sanctions and supply Taiwan with weapons similar to what we're doing with Israel but will stop short of committing troops in battle. But what do I know?

Brian

You're dealing with a million+ army. To take that out you're looking at a total death-toll that'd make the holocaust look like a schoolyard spat.

There is very little thirst for change in China these days, sure, unrestricted internet access is nice but noone is going to die for it, China is following the Singapore model - give them wealth and they'll forget about freedom.

Er......have you been checked for early-stage alzheimer's?
not much.

If you're gonna quote multiple folks in one post, please use attributions.

From Fox:

OC - 1 US military casualty is too much... but too be fair, when you are looking at statistics like that, make sure they are backing out non-combat related deaths. training and normal duty related deaths are an everyday event in the military.

Agreed, and I don't know how the AP is counting them. But this snippet was pulled from a news story about the co-ordinated attacks in Tikrit and Baghdad yesterday.

I just posted it here to underline the post I had written earlier.

Well, you can be certain they are talking deaths, and not casualties.

To me it's the same thing. Whether a freak throws a grenade into a tent or a suicide bomber get them or a plane crashes due to sand in the intakes, it's all casualties to me. We shouldn't be there, and our people are dying for someone else's democracy. I have a problem with that.

my point was that some of those deaths would happen here in the states or wherever their normal training stations are. i remember a few years back a group was running numbers on the death count in KSA in an effort to get us out. they included everything, including the 2 guys who died because they took one of the landcruisers out to the desert and rolled it into a wadi killing themselves, and also the guy who was screwing around and a stack of pallets fell over on him.

three people died. those three deaths had absolutely nothing to do with location, combat, politics, just wars, etc. military duty is a dangerous occupation in many ways. but just being in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing can be dangerous too - just don't use those people in your statistics.

Cryptome have this shit nailed.

*sigh*

good site jag. like i said before - too many dead blahblahblah. i just want to make sure that we don't start pulling numbers from the air, and we take into account that american servicemen and women die frequently whether we are involved in combat operations or not. i don't like seeing normal deaths attributed to combat, etc.