<grunt100@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5ba2f89c.0306232137.3bd1c9d6@posting.google.com...
> "USA" <USA@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<5_iHa.6337$Uj1.384@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> > > And it suited Japan
> > > fine.  It didn't have to account for its past, and now that it suits
> > > to start seemingly expansionist military, it's fine to as long as it
> > > suits to Japan.
>
> > At the end of WWII Japan was completely devastated and absolutely at the
> > mercy of
> > the United States. Frankly, I don't believe Japan would have cared one
way
> > or the other
> > whether it had to account for anything or not. The fact is that the
Tokyo
> > War Crimes trials
> > were held and number of people were found guilty and sentenced to death.
> > There were many
> > Japanese who blamed these people as well as theformer Japanes military
for
> > the devastation
> > brought on because of the war. Officially, Japan did account for
everything.
> > It is merely an
> > unfortunate circumstance that not "everyone" was included. For example
China
> > was represented
> > by the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek. This is one of the reasons
that
> > PROC today which represents
> > China feels that it never had any say or recourse against Japan.
> > But all this really doesn't have much to do with the current upgrading
of
> > the military in Japan.
> > From 1945 until now Japan has resisted all efforts, even those of the
United
> > States, to upgrade
>
> Yeah, right.  Officially Japan did account for everything.  No wonder
> you wrote Japan annexed Korea peacefully.

I never wrote that. I write that the annexation of Korea was peaceful only
in comparison
to the Invasion of China. Furthernore, the discussion was about loss of life
and property.
The retarded Monkey and Master of Misquotes Kay has taken this out of
context and you
have swallowed the bait.

>Probably, this is the crucial
> difference how victims and victimizers see each other.
>
I don't doubt that as a fact, but I don't agree that it applies here.

> For one, if Japan did account for everything, how come they only
> acknoledged they -Japan government- did engage with so called comfort
> women business for their war effort only during 1990s?
>
Society and pressure. It has happened in all democratic countries.
I don't see why Japan should be exampt from this.

> Your problem is you are eager to dress up for Japan without looking at
> why Koreans really do get riled up.

Well thank you for deciding for me what my problem is. I was certain it was
the lack of Korea posters who
could rationally consider what I was saying without speaking from emotion
only.
Face it many Koreans even young ones harbor racist resentment towards the
Japanese, you being a prime
example. Oh I know where it comes from, and I'm not dismissing the reasons.
But it IS a fact.

> > their military. It took the provactive launching of a missle over Japan
in
> > 1998 by North Korea to start turning public sentiment around and ther
current nuclear stand-off
> > and continous NKorean threats to get the government moving.
>
> Precisely, a suiting time for Japan to drop the farce of self-defense
> force.  That's the way goes.  A timely chance for Japan to drop self-
> defense farce.
>
Suiting Japan??? What do you think? That the Japanese requested North Korea
to start acting belligerently
to justify remilitarization?

> If missile over Japan was provocative, how provocative was it upward
> of 200,000 so called comfort women who suffered under Japan but
> conveniently sweeped under rug?  On the same token, just let it pass
> 50 years, a missile over Japan won't be so provocative after all.

That is a pretty silly comparison. The comfort women issue occured during
the reign of the Japanese Empire,
during which time Korea was a Japanese colony, and China was one big
battleground.
The 1998 missle launching was during 60 years of peace.
Only one who harbors hatred for the Japanese could possibly attempt such a
comparison.