Comments on: Illegal fishing – Koreans violate Japanese territorial waters

By: Metrogirl13

Metrogirl13 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:08:39 +0000

This is between Japan and Korea. Why not let them deal with it and you can focus on your own country? Then Maybe, Just maybe, we can save our world. Or do you want to die prematurely? Get your own life. Sure if it was some war casing problem I could understand but I don’t get what you peoples obsession with lives that aren’t yours is. Really. I am not trying to be rude but judging other countries isn’t helping save the entire world.

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:26:01 +0000

Sure – the bottom half.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:58:09 +0000

What’s wrong with fat Korean chicks?

By: Dr.Yu

Dr.Yu — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:40:55 +0000

You have great imagination ….

By: helical

helical — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:21:15 +0000

It was probably labeled anti-Japan based on the observation that Korea not honoring the 1999 agreement about fishing around the Liancourt Rocks, all the while invading Japanese waters to fish (and using environmentally damaging methods) is hypocritical and shows a degree of contempt for Japan and agreements with them.
But I doubt the individual fishermen doing the actual crossing of the borders have anything to do with the barring of Japanese fishermen from around the Liancourt Rocks, so I do agree whether to call this “anti-Japan” is a bit contentious.

And Japan is just arresting and fining intruders so it’s not anti-Korean at all.

The “anti-” would creep in there only if the assumption was made that the Korean fishermen were invading Japanese waters because they think Japan is beneath them, and/or Japan is arresting the Korean fishermen only to be mean to them. Both of which is plausible but somewhat doubtful.

By: Dr.Yu

Dr.Yu — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:07:01 +0000

They don’t’ make it public because this is a minor issue that happens everywhere. Korea for instance has problem with the Chinese, even having a cost guard officer killed by illegal fisherman, but they also don’t make it public because it’s a diplomatic issue to be solved by the government of both countries.
So my question again is why this issue is labeled as anti-Japan subject when it’s clearly a diplomatic issue? Actually I think it should be labeled as “anti-Korea” subject.

By: helical

helical — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:38:57 +0000

Uh, if the Japanese government really wasn’t concerned about it, they wouldn’t have the coast guard going out and catching the fishing boats to make them pay fines.
They’re just not advertising to the world that they’re doing it, which seems to be the opposite way of Korea is going about handling the Liancourt Rocks issue.

By: Dr.Yu

Dr.Yu — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:04:11 +0000

Why a fishing proglem between Japan and Korea is classified as “anti-Japan” subject in this blog?
Fishing disputes exist everywhere and it has nothing to do with racism, xenophoby or nationalism. This is more a diplomatic or geographical issue.
Besides, Japanese government seems not to be concerned about this issue.

By: Dr.Yu

Dr.Yu — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:56:42 +0000

“In a perfect world, however, these people would realize that since there happen to be two rocks and two claimants, if you give one to Japan and call it Takeshima and the other to Korea and name it Dokdo then everyone would be happy.”

Would Japan accept to do the same with the diaoyu island? Give to China half the island and than, everybody is happy?

By: Canadian

Canadian — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:15:04 +0000

This is very true.

Rule #176 of diplomacy = Don’t mess with Russia too much

I do have to give a positive credit to South Korea for having a better relationship with Russia than Japan, despite President Lee is very problematic right now.

Japan should make full peace with Russia for the sake of not indirectly angering China, including the “Chinese” me.

Peace with Russia = good for Japan

By: helical

helical — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:42:35 +0000

Just be glad this isn’t about Korean Whales …

By: Togu

Togu — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:38:14 +0000

why do korean related issues have so many comments lol

By: Mr. USA

Mr. USA — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:10:15 +0000

“Whale research” is done in international waters though.

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:42:25 +0000

And then we can build the Bridge of Peace and Friendship connecting the two…..
Would be fun to propose to get the reactions.

By: ij487i

ij487i — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:31:02 +0000

Japan, since the smaller one (with more usable land, apparently) would be more amenable to the currently residing Korean couple and the forty some odd police officers charged with protecting them

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:30:14 +0000

The Korean position on taking it to the Hague is based on 1.5 things: thy consider that doing so will admit that it is disputed, rather than saying the dispute is all on Japan’s side – that is, it would give legitimacy to Japan’s position. The rest of the argument is that since Japan refuses to do the same thing with the Senkaku islands, and take the same position Korea does re the Liancourts, Japan is being two-faced.

That’s just a summary of their position as I understand it – I haven’t actually done any research into the Japanese stance vis-a-vis Senkaku and the Hague.

ij487i – I like your idea about the rocks. But then who gets the bigger one?

By: James

James — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:18:43 +0000

In a perfect world, however, these people would realize that since there happen to be two rocks and two claimants, if you give one to Japan and call it Takeshima and the other to Korea and name it Dokdo then everyone would be happy.

Or, better yet, both Korea and Japan could place the case before the International Court in the Hague and allow a third party with no stake in the territorial dispute to decide which country has a legitimate claim to the islets.

By: ij487i

ij487i — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:41:21 +0000

I guess you have a point; however, in the case of Dokdo/Takeshima (in reference to jc’s comment) I wouldn’t entirely blame South Korea for pressing the issue, as Japan is just as adamant in maintaining its position.

The way I see it, neither side has a greater claim on the islets over the other (though FWIW they are geographically closer to the Korean peninsula).

In a perfect world, however, these people would realize that since there happen to be two rocks and two claimants, if you give one to Japan and call it Takeshima and the other to Korea and name it Dokdo then everyone would be happy.

By: hgfktku

hgfktku — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:06:00 +0000

lol.russians get japanese and koreans illigal fishers all the year.

By: klimmer

klimmer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:09:16 +0000

For that statement, I wish there was a “like” button.

By: klimmer

klimmer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:07:21 +0000

Whats on the other hand?

By: steve

steve — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:57:23 +0000

Yes, the other part of me thinks that the fisherman in Shimane have nothing to do with the Bearing Sea and that karma should leave them alone.

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:49:08 +0000

A small part, hopefully, as otherwise it implies that people cannot learn from their mistakes.

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:47:29 +0000

I think the Koreans should seize and desist….

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:46:46 +0000

Every time they insist the correct name of the Sea of Japan is – in English, mind you – the East Sea, and blame Japan forcing the name on the world, when the world in fact quite happily decided independently that it was going to call the body of water created by the archipelago of Japan the Sea of Japan.

By: VonSkippy the Troll

VonSkippy the Troll — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:34:31 +0000

Maybe the Korean’s are just doing “fish research”.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:34:04 +0000

I remember how much the US was pissed at Japan for doing the same thing for the same reasons off the Alaskan coast. Though that was 20 years ago, part of me wants to say karma’s a bitch.

By: HamachiMan

HamachiMan — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:19:22 +0000

I doubt the Dodko brigade would care too much about these illegal maneuvers. Just bring out the old World War 2 atrocity card and all is good.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:17:43 +0000

South Korean fisherman are in Japanese waters, so the United States should “nuke South Korea out of existence”? Makes as much sense to me as most of the arguments on here I guess.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:14:36 +0000

“Cease”…it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

By: ij487i

ij487i — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:08:45 +0000

question: how does S. Korea “regularly disrespect international history”?

By: Dave Faulkmore

Dave Faulkmore — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:08:24 +0000

Cease their ships and then deport the occupants. Make them pay for the deportation cost.

For added laughs you can fine them, but don’t give their ships back. Over time losing ships will make them hurt a little.

By: pcurve

pcurve — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:11:51 +0000

Gotta love idiotic blanketing statements like this. The fact that you’re even thinking about the notion of the U.S. using a nuke against another country speaks volume about your feeble mindset. Grow up pal. I love coming to this site, but comments like this just make me cringe.

By: jc

jc — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:59:16 +0000

On the one hand, South Koreans regularly disrespect international history, illegally occupy a pair of barren islands, and then file grievances against Japan for trying to assert rightful sovereignty.

On the other hand, they do many things to intentionally damage their neighbors across the sea, dumping garbage overboard and destroying Japanese fisheries.

Absurd activities like these make me want USA to just nuke South Korea out of existence.