The Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is dedicated to those who died fighting for the Japanese Emperor. This include 12 who are convicted of Class A war crimes (Crime againt peace). Many previous Japan Prime Minister have visited the shrine and official condemnation by neighbours countries started long time ago. The visiting to the Yasukuni Shrine was seen as an attempt to legitimize Japan's militarism in the past, paying respect to those who killed countless innocent people in Japan's expansion of power in Asia. Chinese and South Koren government had expressed concern over the visiting of Yasukuni Shrine by Junichiro Koizumi, who visited the shrine last month. Should this practise be continued or stopped ?
Japan is avery collectivist society, I don't think that the Emperor's intentions are to praise those who commited class a war crimes. The fact that WWII is preactically skipped in japanese history classes all together is a sign that they do not want to associate with their past and that what happened in WWII is regretable. On the other hand, Korea, China and Japan have throught history fought over cultural superiority, because of this history many Japanese consider what was done to Korea and China during WWII was justified but it is defenitely not mentioned in public/media out of respect. However, Japan does indeed regret to this day bringing the US into the war. Hell, they regreted it immediately after the attacks on pearl harbor knowing they had just "awoke the sleeping dragon." in the words of a Japanese Naval General.
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt
They were more concerned with your comparison of a single general to a shrine honoring thousands of people. The two are quite different. Battlefields I can understand. But the Yasukuni Shrine is nothing like a poster of General Lee.
Notsojoey was attacking the original claim that the monument meant someting and compared it to a poster of General Lee. At which point people said the two were different when I compared the monument to a confederate battlefield.
There is deabte here over nothing because ampmaster and Hydrok are so blinded with hatred for notsojoey, bushsupproter, and myself that they will go against anything we say. Lets sum this up as a lesson learned.
If you could read, marine, you'd find that isn't the case. The only person set against the shrine--since the beginning of the argument--has been skynriver. No one else has had a problem with it.
Is that so hard to understand, or are you simply blinded by your apparent need to beat us all in a debate?
To summarize: Skynriver - against the shrine everyone else - no problem
Got it? We didn't change our positions; we've been on the same side of this debate the whole time.
the hell? I've been saying the memorial is no offensive and that any one who finds it so can go mind their own damn buisness since my first post on this thread
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
Notsojoey is right, there clearly is no debate here since everyone except notsojoey and bushsupport said the memorial was offensive and then changed their minds.
Originally posted by notsojoey: I have been saying all along that the Japanesse memorial is not offensive. Can you people not read? So I guess we all agree that neither memorial is offensive and thus it doesn't matter is respect is paid to either one.
This argument is because your neo-con friends decided they couldn't read.
I have been saying all along that the Japanesse memorial is not offensive. Can you people not read? So I guess we all agree that neither memorial is offensive and thus it doesn't matter is respect is paid to either one.
"I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20" - notsojoey
neither should be and if you have any common sense at all neither are offensive in the slightest
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
There are countless battlefield memorials in the south comerating confederater victories just as Bushsupporter said. Why aren't you people complaining about this. How are these confederate troops any different than those of Japan?
Arlington National Cemetary was land owned by General Lee. I guess ampmaster thinks that Arlington is a way to pay tribute to General Lee and the issue of sucession.
The shrine means nothing in Japan, notsojoey is right.
How would you draw that conclusion? Arlingon National Cemetary is a place to honor men who have laid down their lives for their nation. The Yasukuni shrine is the japanese equivelent of such a place. My comment on Robert E. Lee was in response notsojoey's assumption that the portraits of General Lee in West Point were practically the same thing as the Yasukuni Shrine.
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
Topics 
