Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Radar

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

jobjed said:

I do not understand this law at all. If I tolerate the usage of MY property by someone because I don't want to appear like an a**hole, the property will somehow become their's if I tolerate them long enough?

Click to expand...

ahadicow said:

I do really suspect that law only apply to unclaimed land. Because there is a lot of unattended properties out there. Suppose I sneak into all of them, and I'm crafty enough to avoid detection and documented my "use" history, I would become the legal owner of all of them in 7 years? That doesn't sound right at all. OK /tangent

Click to expand...

No...it does not apply just to "unclaimed" land. If you allow someone to use, live on, occupy, etc. your land for seven years and do not challenege it, they can then file for "squatter's rights," in some states and be awarded that portion of the land they have used.

It generally does not apply to situations like mine because people will not take advantage of others in that way. And my neighbor has been a good person and I do not expect he would take that type of advantage. But having lived 57 years and seen people do things you would not have thought they would do, I file just in case to make sure.

Most of the time it happens without the party who wons the land being aware of it.

I do not like the law either, but as I said, it excists in some states.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Jeff Head said:

No...it does not apply just to "unclaimed" land. If you allow someone to use, live on, occupy, etc. your land for seven years and do not challenege it, they can then file for "squatter's rights," in some states and be awarded that portion of the land they have used.

It generally does not apply to situations like mine because people will not take advantage of others in that way. And my neighbor has been a good person and I do not expect he would take that type of advantage. But having lived 57 years and seen people do things you would not have thought they would do, I file just in case to make sure.

Most of the time it happens without the party who wons the land being aware of it.

I do not like the law either, but as I said, it excists in some states.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

We have something similar in the UK, which is really a related to land and property that has fallen out of ownership for whatever reason. We call taking Possession "Adverse Possession" and after many years it can lead to "Adverse Title" leading ultimately to "Full Title". The Adverse Occupier is however duty bound to make all reasonable enquiries to try and locate the owner and is vulnerable for nearly twenty years to a counter claim from an actual Owner.

I do not think it is really applicable to International Relations however and would advise all posters that it is does sound like a rather meandering wander off topic and would therefore further advise returning to topic and leave this particular little path to its own devices

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Jeff Head said:

I had to deal with an issue like this on my own, where a neighbor used a part of my land for a drive so his large lumber truch could get back to his property. After seven years, if I did not make a legal issue of it, he could have claimed ownership to that little strip of land. So I filed...just to make sure that didn.t happen (and will do so ever five years or so)...but then continue to let him use it as a good neighbor.

Click to expand...

As others have noted, this is exactly what China has been doing.

To take your analogy, it would be like your neighbor building a fence around your strip of land in order to keep you out of your own property. What would you do then?

Oh, and the Cultural Revolution ended in 1977 with the death of Mao. 1972 was smack dab in the middle of the CR.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

solarz said:

As others have noted, this is exactly what China has been doing.

To take your analogy, it would be like your neighbor building a fence around your strip of land in order to keep you out of your own property. What would you do then?

Oh, and the Cultural Revolution ended in 1977 with the death of Mao. 1972 was smack dab in the middle of the CR.

Click to expand...

I believe the CR was well on its way to ending before Mao died. If when he died in 1977 and 1972 was smack in trhe middle of it, your contention would be that the CR started in 1967? I Believe it started far sooner than that.

Once the US started normalizing relations with the PRC in the early 70s, the handwriting was on the wall.

As to my analogy, as I have explained (read back in my posts) that analogy was not meant for China, it was used to show another SD poster that their analogy regarding squatters was not a valid one, and my statement was directed at that poster, not at China or its actions in the least.

China has been making arguements and trying to stop Japan. I simply filed some paperwork to ensure my neighbor could not "own" the land, but never took issue with the use of it as we had agreed. I do believe China is taking issue wuith the Japanese use of the islands.

So, maybe now we can get back to the issue of China and Japan and these islands and the supposed, "lock on," and stop making the issue about my response to a squatters rights analogy that another poster introduced into the conversation?

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Jeff Head said:

I believe the CR was well on its way to ending before Mao died. If when he died in 1977 and 1972 was smack in trhe middle of it, your contention would be that the CR started in 1967? I Believe it started far sooner than that.

Click to expand...

"The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, commonly known as the Cultural Revolution (Chinese: 文化大革命; pinyin: Wénhuà Dàgémìng), was a social-political movement that took place in the People's Republic of China from 1966 through 1976."

Once the US started normalizing relations with the PRC in the early 70s, the handwriting was on the wall.

Click to expand...

Sigh... it's all about the US, isn't it? FYI, there's a reason the CR ended with the death of Mao. Look up the Gang of Four.

As to my analogy, as I have explained (read back in my posts) that analogy was not meant for China, it was used to show another SD poster that their analogy regarding squatters was not a valid one, and my statement was directed at that poster, not at China or its actions in the least.

China has been making arguements and trying to stop Japan. I simply filed some paperwork to ensure my neighbor could not "own" the land, but never took issue with the use of it as we had agreed. I do believe China is taking issue wuith the Japanese use of the islands.

So, maybe now we can get back to the issue of China and Japan and these islands and the supposed, "lock on," and stop making the issue about my response to a squatters rights analogy that another poster introduced into the conversation?

Click to expand...

So in other words, you would take issue with your neighbor if he tried to keep you off your own property.

Now you know how China feels.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

If that's how you feel about it, then tell me what you think China would do if India moved into Aksai Chin and built a bunch of houses and "settled" people there, and why you think a Chinese response to that would somehow be different from a Japanese response to China sending people over to "settle" DYT.

There is a perception of de facto administration which you seem to not be getting here. In contrast to many of the little islets in the Spratlys, both Aksai Chin and DYT are CLEARLY administered by specific countries, and any arbitray move to change the status quo would be viewed extremely negatively in today's world. And TBH neither Japan nor India are in the league of any of the SEA nations and are not to be easily trifled with by arbitrarily land-grabbing like some kind of bully. Perhaps you personally do not care about international perception, but I'm pretty sure Chinese leaders give at least some thought to this, as all national leaders should. Even with Western media biased against China, a unilateral move by India to send its people into Aksai Chin would be universally condemned, as it should be. And that would be just the media response. The military and political response would be immediate and severe. It wouldn't be any different if China did the same to Japan.

Click to expand...

Mysterre, you seem to agreeing with me that settling people on the islands would be a provocative and powerful step. China would freak out if India moved people into Aksai Chin because China believes the same thing as me: people are the ultimate demonstrators of sovereignty.

Last December China ratified a border agreement with Tajikistan that transferred 1,000 sq. kms to China. It barely made any news in the West. Why? Because it was an extremely remote and unpopulated region. I personally believe all territory has significant value, even the most desolate territory. Russia thought Alaska was useless and sold it to America. And then oil was discovered....I bet Russia regrets that decision now.

Anyways, if there are a large number of people living in a disputed territory, it becomes extremely difficult to change that territory's ownership. China claims Arunachal Pradesh, an area of 83,000 sq. km and 1.3 million Indian citizens. Can you fathom Arunachal Pradesh, or any populated part of it, changing hands as easily as the Tajikistan area?

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

solarz said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, commonly known as the Cultural Revolution (Chinese: 文化大革命; pinyin: Wénhuà Dàgémìng), was a social-political movement that took place in the People's Republic of China from 1966 through 1976."

Click to expand...

Thanks for that reference...I took the Cultural Revolution to have begun in the late 1950s, and apparently I was wrong. I stand corrected.

solarz said:

Sigh... it's all about the US, isn't it? FYI, there's a reason the CR ended with the death of Mao. Look up the Gang of Four.

Click to expand...

I am very familiar with the gang of four. My point is simply this, once the US started to normalize relations with the PRC, then the Cultural Revolution as instituted was not likely to continue in any case. Of course there were other critical factors that also played into it, but we were not discussing those. So, it is not "all about the US." I never implied that it was, I just stated that the handwriting was on the wall when the US began normalizing relations...that does not mean that this was the only reason. My advise would to be less touchy and less qquick to jump to conclusions and accusations about what another person "really" means. All you have to do is ask wat I meant and I will be happy to tell you.

solarz said:

So in other words, you would take issue with your neighbor if he tried to keep you off your own property.

Now you know how China feels.

Click to expand...

Of course I would take issue with someone trying to take and keep me off my own proerty.

But your second point is not a valid comparison.

My property is established in very clear legal terms with an unecumbered deed recognized by my local, state, and federal government, which my neighbor also recognizes. My neighbor also recognizes the deed establishing it as mine. I just ensure that a particular loophole in the law cannot be executed to allow my neighbor to ever make such a claim. Though I do not believe he would, I make sure he can't. So, my neighbor does not, and is not contending that my property is his property.

Right now, the soveriegnty of those islands is in contention. Both sides do not recognize or accept the claim of the other. It will take an international ruling that both parties recognize to settle it aimiably. When that happens...then yes, I will know how China feels, if after it is determined to be their land, they were to let Japan use the islands and have to take measrues to ensure that such use remained just "use," and was not able to turn into ownership. Then the analogy would fit.

So, once again, can we please stop making an issue of an analogy that was raised by another SD poster which I responded to in order to show it was not a good analogy...and now that response, which had nothing to do with China or these islands, has somehow become the topic of discussion as if though it did?

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Jeff Head said:

Thanks for that reference...I took the Cultural Revolution to have begun in the late 1950s, and apparently I was wrong. I stand corrected.

I am very familiar with the gang of four. My point is simply this, once the US started to normalize relations with the PRC, then the Cultural Revolution as instituted was not likely to continue in any case. Of course there were other critical factors that also played into it, but we were not discussing those. So, it is not "all about the US." I never implied that it was, I just stated that the handwriting was on the wall when the US began normalizing relations...that does not mean that this was the only reason. My advise would to be less touchy and less qquick to jump to conclusions and accusations about what another person "really" means. All you have to do is ask wat I meant and I will be happy to tell you.

Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the thread, so this will be my last post on this subject. I do not think the US had any influence at all on the end of the Cultural Revolution. The CR was instigated by Mao was a means of recovering his political influence and destroying his opponents. The Gang of Four were the major power players of the CR, and it took their arrest to effectively end the CR. The Gang of Four included Jiang Qing, wife of Mao, so nobody could touch her while Mao lived. That is why, US relations or no US relations, the CR ended with the death of Mao.

The normalization of relations with the US was a way for the PRC to gain support against the Soviet Union. Your idea that it somehow spelled the end of the CR is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. Certainly, Mao was not about to change his domestic policies in order to stay on good relations with the US.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Geographer said:

Mysterre, you seem to agreeing with me that settling people on the islands would be a provocative and powerful step. China would freak out if India moved people into Aksai Chin because China believes the same thing as me: people are the ultimate demonstrators of sovereignty.

Last December China ratified a border agreement with Tajikistan that transferred 1,000 sq. kms to China. It barely made any news in the West. Why? Because it was an extremely remote and unpopulated region. I personally believe all territory has significant value, even the most desolate territory. Russia thought Alaska was useless and sold it to America. And then oil was discovered....I bet Russia regrets that decision now.

Anyways, if there are a large number of people living in a disputed territory, it becomes extremely difficult to change that territory's ownership. China claims Arunachal Pradesh, an area of 83,000 sq. km and 1.3 million Indian citizens. Can you fathom Arunachal Pradesh, or any populated part of it, changing hands as easily as the Tajikistan area?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. Arunachal Pradesh is now effectively Indian no matter the history of the McMahon Line. It's only usefulness to China now is as a bargaining chip for the rest of the territorial disputes China has with India. The same thing would apply to Hawaii's illegal annexation by the US. The descendents of the Queen of Hawaii would have a difficult time pressing their (legitimate) case against the US because of the presence of so many people there who would probably be opposed to Hawaii leaving the Union and reestablishing a monarchy.

This is not to suggest, however, that forcibly sending people into disputed territory that is effectively controlled by another country is a wise course of action. As I said, IMO if China did that in the case of DYT, the chance of war between Japan and China would rise to essentially 100%. TBH I see no realistic way for de facto control of DYT to change to China without some kind of worldwide calamity or another world war or something of that magnitude, or if the power balance in the Pacific becomes drastically tipped in favor of China, far more than I would expect to see in at least the first half of this century, such that China could just sail in, plop down some settlers, and neither Japan nor the US could do anything about it. OTOH even before such a large power differential is achieved, China could effectively start ignoring Japan's de facto control of the islands themselves and start developing the ocean resources around the islands. While quite provocative in its own right, it would not be quite as provocative as putting boots on the ground and IMO could be achieved with a somewhat smaller power differential. For those of us who believe that Japan's control of DYT is a historical injustice as of yet unrectified, this would be a less confrontational path of defiance than outright invasion of the islands themselves, and would effectively negate the need to formally control the islands, since their only real value is the EEZ that surrounds them.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

LesAdieux said:

Abe, like all japanese right-wingers, harbours ill will towards China, so a friendly relationship is imposssible.

Abe doesn't have a strong hand to play, it's pretty much a no-win scenario for him. he may have learnt from noda, japan cannot win any confrontation, and there is no going back.

Click to expand...

Unlike Germany, Japan did not have it's political deck of name cards washed properly after WWII, and many of the right-wingers today were probably descendants of the right-wingers back then. It makes sense then why they would want to white wash history and maybe even seeks return of what they think would be theirs if Japan had won. Political business is probably more family-dynastic in Japan than in China, despite it claiming to be democratic.

Under this atmosphere it may not be possible to make the Japanese government to seriously think about what they did in WWII and make amends, as it would imply illegitimacy of many of the current people in power and office. This I think will be the death knot that cannot be side-stepped in Sino-Japanese issues. And I don't honestly think there is a proper solution without doing something big and drastic.