Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    Maybe you should re-read his post. It would appear that he is interested, thus the "keep us updated" remark.
    Maybe you should re-read the tread. He confessed. But you still can push his thanks button as you are of the same company.

  2. #22
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Maybe you should re-read the tread. He confessed. But you still can push his thanks button as you are of the same company.
    Your lack of comprehension is apparent, but I will bite: Where did he confess to anything other than you failing to grasp his post?
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Article two of the treaty is quite clear. It says if one of the two contracting powers becomes involved in a conflict, the other must maintain neutrality. What part of this do you not understand. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly.
    The article ARTICLE TWO says:
    Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


    What part of this do you not understand?
    Japan did not maintain neutrality by aiding Germany in its conflict with the Allied Powers as well as directly conducting military operations against the Allied powers.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Furthermore, as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.
    No, furthermore there are no words “as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan” in the Article 2. You have made them up. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly and just make things up.
    Using Furthermore is another verbal fallacy of yours. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.
    1. Actions of Japan prior the completion of the conflict between the USSR and Germany had made the treaty meaningless.
    2 The USSR’s completion of Germany partially happened due to mutual obligations between the USSR and The US. One of the obligations of the USSR was aiding the US in destroying Japan.
    3 The conflict between the USSR and Germany was only a part of the conflict the USSR was imposed. The USSR was in a conflict not only with Germany, but with all military allies of Germany, as well it was part of the Allied power fighting Germany, Italy, Japan as well as allies of the later three.
    4.This is a common sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Are you even aware of customary international law? Obviously not.
    Two questions:

    1. Are you familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law?

    2. Did you know that the primary source of customary international law is "state practice"?
    What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
    The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.

    You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:
    ‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’

    Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.

    You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.

    Like you have been forfeiting goals and possibility of a resonable debate.

  4. #24
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The article ARTICLE TWO says:
    Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.
    Japan observed neutrality vis a vis the USSR. Japan did not attack it. You claim that Japan helped Germany against the USSR. How? Japan was focused on China and the USA in the Pacific. They were a little too occupied in those theaters to help Germany against the SOviets. The USSR violated the treaty.

    What part of this do you not understand?
    Japan did not maintain neutrality by aiding Germany in its conflict with the Allied Powers as well as directly conducting military operations against the Allied powers.
    How did Japan aid Germany against the SOVIET UNION, the other contracting party in the treaty.

    No, furthermore there are no words “as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan” in the Article 2. You have made them up. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly and just make things up.
    What are you talking about. Are you such a Russia/USSR apologist that you can't see the logical fallacies in your own arguments?

    Simple facts.

    1. USSR and Japan sign a neutrality pact that includes neutrality even if one becomes involved in a war.
    2. Japan maintained neutrality with the USSR despite the fact that a global war was underway.
    3. War in Europe ENDED in May, 1945, so claims that Japan was aiding Germany when the USSR attacked Japan in the summer of 1945 is completely non-sensical.

    Using Furthermore is another verbal fallacy of yours. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic.
    Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.

    1. Actions of Japan prior the completion of the conflict between the USSR and Germany had made the treaty meaningless.
    Japan maintained neutrality in the conflict between Germany and the USSR. Nothing you have said changes that fact.

    2 The USSR’s completion of Germany partially happened due to mutual obligations between the USSR and The US. One of the obligations of the USSR was aiding the US in destroying Japan.
    The USSR did not make that commitment to help the US. The USSR wanted to wipe out Germany because GErmany invaded the USSR. Let's not play revisionist history. Regardless, it was still a violation of the USSR's treaty violations.

    3 The conflict between the USSR and Germany was only a part of the conflict the USSR was imposed. The USSR was in a conflict not only with Germany, but with all military allies of Germany, as well it was part of the Allied power fighting Germany, Italy, Japan as well as allies of the later three.
    Once again, Japan could have used the same logic, but never opened up a second front against the USSR in the Far East. Japan was upholding the treaty. The USSR violated it.

    What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
    Do you know what this is and its importance in international law?

    The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.
    I will take it that you do NOT know what the importance of customary law is.

    You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:
    What law are you referring to?

    ‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’
    Did you make this up? There have been plenty of treaties where compliance is difficult of nearly impossible. Kyoto comes imediately to mind. What is the nonsense of the 1941 Neutrality Treaty? NAPs have been common in the history of the interaction of states.

    Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.
    Japan maintained neutrality vis a vis the USSR. Nothing you have presented changes that. You can say Japan was at war with the Allies, which is true. However, Japan was NOT at war with the USSR.

    You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.
    I shall ask again.

    1. Do you know what customary law is?
    2. Are you aware of its importance in the development of international law?

    Another non-response will be taken as complete ignorance on your part of these very BASIC principles of international law.

    Like you have been forfeiting goals and possibility of a resonable debate.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    You have not make any new statements regarding the subject but just have ignored my arguments and exactly repeated statements of your previous post.

    They all were answered and some of them more than once. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned. I don’t even know if should I repeat or accent for others who visit this tread.

    Germany attacked the USSR when Japan has a treaty with Germany where Japan was taking obligations to provide military, economic and political aid to Germany - not excluding but rather including Germany’s military actions in Europe. Since Japan didn’t withdraw from the treaty with Germany when Germany undertook military action against the USSR (within conditions of the treaty beween germany and Japan) its treaty with the USSR lost any legal validity, lost any sense.

    If Kyoto comes to your mind as an example of a treaty which has non-sense as its goal and impossibility to comply with it, I can only congratulate you. It seems like you are quite a discoverer of things nobody can think about.
    The US - during all time of its confrontation with the Empire of evil never thought about accusing it in breaking the international law by withdrawing from treaty of Tripoli, I mean from treaty with Japan. I can imagine that now professors of law do it today - I don’t know how widely liberal lunatics are spread in Universities today, but the US has never proposed such a bogus idea on international stage. May be Obama’s administration will push this accusation on Russia, - who knows, all kind of things may be expected, but I still think it will take time before any common sense will be exterminated by your type in the US.


    All you have added is desertion to statements “Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.’’ such a Russia/USSR apologist’’, - which is pathetic, and again it proves that you are not capable of reasoning.


    I am rather the US history apologist as the US have never accused the USSR in what you are accusing.

    I am very sympathetic to Russia for a number of reasons, but it does not have anything to do to my attitude to the USSR.

    Your spreading the term the USSR on only the Russian Federation when you look at all other former members of the USSR, - like they have nothing to do to the USSR, - proves that you are not only ignorant and unreasonable, but also most likely a pathetic Russophobe. When people who suffer from lack of reason, ignorance and phobia express the named symptoms talking about Russia they make me even more sympathetic to Russia.

    Russia rulez. Look into the KGB eyes:

    http://efficientawesomeness.com/blog...utin_rules.jpg


    and die.
    Last edited by justone; 01-28-09 at 11:47 PM.

  6. #26
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    You have completely ignored the question about customary international law. Do you know what it is? Do you acknowledge its existance? Do you know what is a source of customary international law?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #27
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You have not make any new statements regarding the subject but just have ignored my arguments and exactly repeated statements of your previous post.
    I have not ignored your arguments. I have either refuted them or simply noted that they are completely non-sensical.

    They all were answered and some of them more than once. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned. I don’t even know if should I repeat or accent for others who visit this tread.
    Any comments about customary international law?

    Germany attacked the USSR when Japan has a treaty with Germany where Japan was taking obligations to provide military, economic and political aid to Germany - not excluding but rather including Germany’s military actions in Europe. Since Japan didn’t withdraw from the treaty with Germany when Germany undertook military action against the USSR (within conditions of the treaty beween germany and Japan) its treaty with the USSR lost any legal validity, lost any sense.
    Apparently the positive language in article two of the treaty is beyond you. Japan remained neutral in the war. The USSR signed that treaty with Japan fully knowing that Hitler would probably stab them in the back or that they would do it first. You have to look at the intent of the USSR in signing the treaty. It was to prevent them from getting embroiled in a two front war - one that would likely have led to the fall of EUropean Russia. It was successful. The USSR got want they wanted. Then, after victory was achieved, they unilateraly abrogated said treaty. There was no more Germany enemy. Your whole premise is moot because the war was over in the west and all but over in the Pacific.

    If Kyoto comes to your mind as an example of a treaty which has non-sense as its goal and impossibility to comply with it, I can only congratulate you. It seems like you are quite a discoverer of things nobody can think about.
    How many countries who have ratified Kyoto are actually in compliance?

    The US - during all time of its confrontation with the Empire of evil never thought about accusing it in breaking the international law by withdrawing from treaty of Tripoli, I mean from treaty with Japan.
    Are you referring to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797? What withdrawal are you talking about?

    I can imagine that now professors of law do it today - I don’t know how widely liberal lunatics are spread in Universities today, but the US has never proposed such a bogus idea on international stage. May be Obama’s administration will push this accusation on Russia, - who knows, all kind of things may be expected, but I still think it will take time before any common sense will be exterminated by your type in the US.
    What bogus idea? Your monoogue is very vague on what points are being addressed when.

    All you have added is desertion to statements “Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.’’ such a Russia/USSR apologist’’, - which is pathetic, and again it proves that you are not capable of reasoning.
    Considering the lack of reasoning and complete ignornace of the concept of customary international law you have thus far shown, I am not going to lose any sleep over such a comment.

    I am rather the US history apologist as the US have never accused the USSR in what you are accusing.
    Accusing of what? Please do a better job of quoting what you are answering. It makes the flow of debate easier to deal with.

    I am very sympathetic to Russia for a number of reasons, but it does not have anything to do to my attitude to the USSR.
    Yet, you are defending their violation of the Neutrality Pact AND defending their illegal annexation of Karafuto and Chishima.

    Your spreading the term the USSR on only the Russian Federation when you look at all other former members of the USSR, - like they have nothing to do to the USSR, - proves that you are not only ignorant and unreasonable, but also most likely a pathetic Russophobe. When people who suffer from lack of reason, ignorance and phobia express the named symptoms talking about Russia they make me even more sympathetic to Russia.
    I am refering to RUssia in this case because Russia is the sole successor state of the USSR in the Far East and in international law, Russia is regarded as the successor state to the USSR.

    Russia rulez. Look into the KGB eyes:
    After dealing with a China apologist for two years, now I have a Russia apologist to deal with. I hope this will be just as much fun.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    It is a lie, as usual, - I did in http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057902616.

    I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
    The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.
    I never had my Qs answered and my points addressed.

    Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.



    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You have to look at the intent of the USSR in signing the treaty. It was to prevent them from getting embroiled in a two front war - one that would likely have led to the fall of EUropean Russia. It was successful. The USSR got want they wanted. .

    You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.

    The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.) The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.





    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I am refering to RUssia in this case because Russia is the sole successor state of the USSR in the Far East and in international law, Russia is regarded as the successor state to the USSR. .

    It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
    ‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    After dealing with a China apologist for two years, now I have a Russia apologist to deal with. I hope this will be just as much fun.
    This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness.

  9. #29
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    You obviously don't get the questions. I will make them simpler.

    1. Do you know what customary international law is?
    2. Do you know what is a valid source of international customary law?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #30
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.
    I have addressed your arguments. You have shown NO understanding whatsoever regarding the principle of customary international law.

    Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.
    I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.

    You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.
    Russia was the dominant power in the USSR, and the mistake was borne of the fact that hte USSR doesn't exist anymore and my thoughts are rather fluid. Of course, such nit picking is indicative of someone who has no argument.

    The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.)
    The USSR signed and ratified the treaty. According to international law, they are legally bound to uphold that. As for Japan getting severly beaten by the USSR, that was because they had already been beaten by the US and China.

    The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.
    I haven't lied about a thing. Both benefited. Nothing I have said contradicts this point. However, Japan maintained its responsibilities under the treaty, the USSR did not.

    You still have done nothing to refute the illegality of the annexation of Karafuto and Chishima by the USSR.







    It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
    ‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.



    This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness.[/QUOTE]
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •