Igor Antunov wrote:Stop engaging in semantics, deconstructing my sentences and creating discussions based around the words I used.
The language is flowery. It is hard to understand your point when you want to use words like stupid low-lives. When taking the time to see your true point, rather than your opinion, in all efforts to give you some kind of benefit of a doubt....well, your point comes across to me as being based upon emotion.
That paragraph could have been written about many national populations.
Igor Antunov wrote: I knew a guy who engaged in psycho analysis during arguments, he had nothing worthwhile to add to the discussions, his words only served to add fluff and irrelevance.
Haven't we all?
Igor Antunov wrote:I do it exclusively when I'm lazy and eager to troll. Let's get serious. You need only know the scenario, the balance of power, the context. It is not in Japan's favour.
You present nothing to change my view, though, despite my eagerness if not my willingness to see your point. If you want to get serious, it is obvious you have my attention. I have extensive first hand experience in both China and Japan. I have worked with both governments. I have even cleared up some matters to the US State Department regarding government issues of the PRC with the backing of the PRC to the mutual agreement of both, and the satisfaction of the DHS. If you really believe one only need know the scenario, the balance of power and the context, to make assertions, especially in such critical areas, you are lacking other resources that are readily at hand.
Using common available resources does not seem as preferable to you as your opinions. We have both been to China, am I correct? Have we both been to Changsha? Would you like to compare notes? Do you think we can do this without providing personal risk or shall we just try to stick to opinions and keep the adjectives to a minimum, so the facts might have a chance to be revealed on their own? When you speak of something not being in favor, I beg you to seriously consider these questions first on a personal level, especially before taking things to a personal level of telling me what to do.
I am more than willing to compare notes.
We have both been to China, correct?
Have we both been to Changsha?
Do you prefer to stick with common available resources or do you wish something truly compelling?
Igor Antunov wrote:You present no compelling evidence to the contrary in regards to the Hainan incident,
"Compelling" is your judgment call, Igor. One cannot say I have not presented evidence. I preferred sticking with the wiki entry because the sources provided should be sufficient. If you feel you can maintain that globalsecurity.org, the BBC, the Taipei Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Salon.com, Reuters, The Economist, NPR and more are not reliable sources, please present other sources. I am all eyes. I have presented evidence and you have merely disputed it being compelling.
Facts are facts. Show some "eastern viewpoints," some compelling evidence regarding the incident, please.
Igor Antunov wrote: wikipedia articles sourced exclusively from the western viewpoint are cute, but no dice I'm afraid.
Roll those bones, then Igor. I am very curious about what you have that has been overlooked.
Igor Antunov wrote: Even here we learn that the incident was a major humiliation for the US, it had to write a letter of apology before it got it's plane back in pieces. It obviously wanted that plane back.
You are insisting on using these words like "major" when the US flat out rejected what China was asking
. "It had to write a letter of apology." You have not even paid the wiki entry attention. I cannot see how you would pay other sources attention.
The United States stated that it was "not a letter of apology," as some state-run Chinese media outlets characterized it at the time, but "an expression of regret and sorrow." While China had originally asked for an apology, the U.S. explained, "We did not do anything wrong, and therefore it was not possible to apologize."http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... 4/12/81342
Now, Reuters and AP feeds the Taipei Times, so you can maintain it as a western source.
What do you have to show besides attacks you claim you have no time for?
Igor Antunov wrote:And want to know which element of the PLA has received greater modernization resources than the navy? The air-force. Yes, it would be a very quick and painful lesson for Japan. Also regarding the point of contention, the disputed islands, the navy would play a very big part.
How about that, Igor. How about that! The increased illumination has been less than fascinating. It has been predictable, in fact.
Bottom line: Japan cannot declare war on China. Does it have enough power to confront China in a war? Of course, it does.
"Butter is fresh. Margarine is indestructible."