A Silent war...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bluesky79, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. bluesky79
    Offline

    bluesky79 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    291
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    In order for Japan to justify Dok Island as their territory in int'l community based on history facts after 1905(when forced incorporation of Dok Island had occurred), Japanese government, media and scholars are unilaterally insisting on its possession right.

    To mention some of historical facts that prove Tok Island is Korean territory, Silla in 512 A.D, which was 1,400 years ago from now, instituted Dok Island to be Korea's indigenous territory, and in 1737, France marked in their 「Complete Map of Chosun Dynasty」 that Woosando(another name for Dok Island) is territory of Chosun Dynasty and Tae Jung Kwan, once a government body of Japan, clearly stated that Ullengdo and Dok Island had no direct relationship with Japan in 1877. Also, in 1946, right after WWII had ended, Supreme Command of the Allies regulated Dok Island as a part of Korean territory.

    As stated above, Dok Island is "obviously a part of Republic of Korea when referred to historical principles, geological principles and effective possession right given by int'l law(for there lives about 50 Koreans including guards, residents and office staffs)."

    From looking at Japan's ambition of territorial seizure, affecting not only Dok Island but also 4 islands of northern Russia and Cho-Uh Island of China, Japan is clearly threatening stability, peace and order of Northeast Asia. If Japan further tries to dispute and occupy Dok Island by distorting historical facts and ignoring customs of int'l laws, International Society would no longer stand to Japan's imperialistic seizure ambition.
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Squabbliing over 46 acres of uninhabitable rocks are we?

    Or is this really about the natural gas that is under it, I wonder?

    I have no dog in this fight.

    And no history to evaluate the debate either.
     

Share This Page