From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Northern Islands
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:47:08 GMT

In article <4061@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.150334.2137@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>   From your explanation, I can understand how the Japanese money could
>>>stabilize the hands of farmers, factory workers and merchants. However,
>
>>Which is, of course, rather the whole point, isn't it?
>
>  Not really. That's their concern. Our concern is the islands as the
>subject title says.

??? Then you shouldn't jump in in the middle of threads.

>>They might indeed. And if the economic situation does not improve, then there
>>might be a lot MORE people who believe a military government is better.
>
>   A farmer cannot push the button if he thinks a military gov't is better.
>One who has a hand on the button can do it if no one else think a military
>gov't is better.

??? So, you see nothing wrong with a restoration of the former autocratic
regime (which incidentally did not give the islands to Japan, either).

>>I'm certain Yeltsin would be very happy to take whatever cash donations Japan
>>wishes to make. 
>
>   If he is that desparate, the most effective way to extract money from 
>Japan is to say, "Give some cold cash to stop my shaking hands over the
>lauching button. I'm so hungry that I don't know how long I can keep it 
>high enough."

Or, he can be a nice guy and sell fishing rights and land rights on the
islands, as he is doing now.

>>the USSR first. She simply wasn't as good at it as the Russians were. Really,
>>all this HAS been mentioned, several times in several posts.
>
>   I don't see any logical explanation here to show the relationship between
>the "pre-1940 skirmishes" and the islands issue... So, what can I say?

Again, it WAS explained before. Japan attacked the USSR. They now claim that
they were unfairly attacked by the USSR. Seems a hypocritcal kind of 
complaint (ie, the USSR was simply better at attack than the Japanese).

>>>   Good. The US gave a significant credence to the Japan's claim.
>
>>Uh, not really. Our most recent public announcements on the situation have been
>>"we recognize there exists a dispute between Japan and the (then) USSR" at the
>>1990 GATT and a recent promise to "request that Russia consider its territorial
>>dispute" with Japan. Not exactly saying a lot.
>
>  It seems like a big progress compared with the 1961 statement that mentioned
>nothing about the "request" to Russia.

??? I believe you mentioned a Cold War statement where it was claimed that
the US absolutely felt the islands were Japanese. Seems the "progress" is
toward the Russian side.

>>Oh, gosh, the rather little attention it has gotten in Japan for several 
>>decades.             ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>
>   It seems that the incorrect impression is derived from another incorrect
>impression.
>
>>> Unless the islands are no man's land like Antarctica, they should belong to
>>>either Japan or Russia. I don't think there is any other country who could
>>>have a legitimate claim over the islands.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^
>>??? Anyone can claim anything. Right now, the islands are Russian.
>
>   Then, which country could claim the possesion of the islands legitimately?
>Right now, the islands are under Russian jurisdiction. Not necessarily
>"Russian." If I have your watch in my pocket, it's still yours. Not mine. 

Again, if you're attempting to compare petty crime with acts of nations,
Imperial Japan is more appropriatly cast in the role of mass-murderer.

>>> If the islands belong to Japan, we could justify a kidnapper's act by using 
>>>Fester-san's rationale above.
>
>>Hunh? If you are going to equate nations with personal crimes/criminals, what
>>would you equate with Imperial Japan? Poor Imperial Japan, invaded, colonized,
>>murdered, instigated wars, and now no one believes she's been mistreated.
>
>   I've already equated Japan as a criminal when I posted a "burglar's
>watch" example. Remember that?

"Burglar"? They invaded, slaughtered, raped, pillaged, and plundered and you 
refer to them as "burglars"?

>   And once again, If the islands are something that should be under Japanese
>jurisdiction, we can equate Russia as a kidnapper by using Fester-san's
>statement cited below.

>"They know they've always got something Japan wants. It can be used at any time
> do get some concession, or do generate other forms of income (leasing fishing
> rights, casino construction, etc). If they give the islands back, with nothing
> in return, they've lost a bargainning chip."

You can equate any shop owner with a a kidnapper by using this sort of logic.
However, that is not the point.

>>They DO belong to Russia now. Absolutely. They USED to belong to Japan. They do
>>not now. Before that, they were independent. So far as the Russians need be
>>concerned, the problem is settled. THEIR problem is money.
>
>   Sorry about another watch example, but let me try this way.   
>"I have a watch in my pocket. It DOES belong to me now. Absolutely. It
>USED to belong to Fester-san. It does not now. Before that, it was on market.
>So far as I'm concerned, the problem is settled. I might consider giving it
>back to Fester-san if he pays me money to feed my families."

>   Seems like legitimacy of possession is really a point.

Well, to continue your rather specious analogy, you would have had to take 
my watch from me by force. I'm willing to bet that you do not have the 
capability of doing so. And that I have the capability of taking it back
from you by force.

In any event, the Japan that lost the islands was, to use your single criminal
analogies, a butchering mass-murderer. No sympathy is extended to such
criminals, nor should it be. 

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan