@sunfunbun, et al,
The suggestion that wars are fought to benefit arms manufacturers ignores basic realities.
This rhetoric was popularized in response to the World Wars and Korea, in which large amounts of expensive hardware were being destroyed.
Modern assymetrical conflicts are not like this. In 20 years the Taliban has destroyed, what? Two helicopters and a few Humvees? Not exactly astronomical sums of money there, folks.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Something like 85% of Afghanistan's economy is dependant on international aid. The Taliban need for that money to keep coming.
So, yes, we do have every right to tell them what we expect from them in exchange for it.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
I thought we were talking about Al Qaida, who attacked the US and were the primary objective of the original invasion.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
No terrorist group can be completely eliminated. The point is that they are no longer a serious threat to the US (have they been planning their next attack for 20 years?). And their 'shelter' is provided solely by the caves they now hide in.
OBL was killed in an operation launched from Afghanistan.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
"this war was a total failure"
I wouldn't say that. The primary objectives, to get Al Qaida and OBL, and eliminate the safe haven that terrorist groups then enjoyed in Afghanistan, were achieved.
The secondary objective that was tacked on later - to create a stable democratic society there - has indeed ended in failure; but that's because it turned out the Afghan people weren't so interested in democracy.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
China allows no more democracy or basic freedoms than the Myanmar junta.
Why is it OK to have relations with them, but not Myanmar?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Damage? You should see the damage, bronze. Mental damage, brain damage....
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Japan and the US renew a mutual defense agreement every so many years. Japan, as a sovereign nation, can choose not to renew it whenever its term expires. Then the US would have no legal right to stay in Japan. End of story.
(And by the way, "civilian control of the military" does not mean that local populations directly make decisions on things like base location. It means they elect the politicians who make those decisions)
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Japan can ask the US forces to leave at any time it wishes, and leave they will. Other countries have done so (France, the Philippines, et al).
To suggest it doesn't have that right is to truck in conspiracy theories.
All the posters here claiming China and North Korea are no threat obviously understand Japan's security situation better than the Japanese government. Gosh, how did y'all get to be so super smart?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Yes, but at least in capitalist democracies a great many other kinds of people can also participate in governance.
You're suggesting other societies have less of this? That's ludicrous.
Everywhere else in the world it is ONLY talentless cretins born to privilege who run the show.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
No drumbeat of lies, Tortoise
Read the IAEA reports:
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Iran has been caught lying about its nuclear program many, many times by IAEA inspectors, as they have stated in their reports over the years.
If you think Iran's leaders don't want nuclear weapons you're kidding yourself.
Seeing as there is no legal way to prevent them doing it (the nuclear deal would only have delayed it), then illegal means such as this assassination are the only option, right?
I wonder if all these posters here think a nuclear-armed Iran would be good for the world. No? Then what do you suggest?
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
I saw this Email from them the other day. I knew it was going to happen sooner or later.
Now I have to decide whether to pay them the $25 a year, or go through the hassle of backing up my photos on a hard drive.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I suppose he means the govt in Beijing.
And BTW, elected politicians can not be fired in America. Trump fires his cabinet ministers, which can be done in any democracy (though not usually with such frequency as the Donald is given to).
In HK any person or politician can be arrested simply for what they say. There is no comparison to America.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
His point was that the Japanese people have more cause to hate the US than China.
I was arguing that they don't, as the Japanese people know good and well.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
joey stalinToday 11:32 am JST
It is the US that bombed, destroyed, invaded and conquered Japan, and militarily occupies the country to this day, not China
Yes, and Germany as well. Now, which part of that was wrong, exactly?
BTW, it's a mutually agreed upon security alliance, not an occupation.
17 ( +21 / -4 )
Actually, that's exactly what I'm arguing.
Being acceptable at that time and place is the determiner of what is right in that time and place (that's not to say 'good', which is another concept entirely).
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I am usually put off by Disney's obsession with political correctness, but this approach is fairly sensible, I suppose.
Though I wonder about that phrase "it was wrong then and it's wrong now.". Was it wrong then? I don't think many people, if any (including the black actors who voiced the crows in 'Dumbo') would have thought that was wrong at the time. The people who made these movies were the Leftists and progressives of their day.
This is an important point, relevant to many controversies about how history should be remembered.
The Left reflexively believes that the moral values of 2020 contain some sort of absolute or intrinsic truth which could have been grasped by people 50 or 500 years ago, had they simply thought about it enough, perhaps.
This a grossly fallacious, and harmful idea to be propagating The Left thus far only applies it selectively to targets of choice, but taken to it's logical conclusions it would render ALL people of the past immoral.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
If it really was such a bad deal for Japan, don't you think they might know that?
They are a sovereign nation, and can ask the US to leave at any time.
All of you claiming the security pact is bad for Japan are obviously a lot smarter than Japan's leaders. Maybe you should be in charge.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
Today 09:27 am JST
From 6 to 9 minutes. That’s how long the first wave of missiles from China would take to hit Japan.
Maybe, but don't you think China knows what would happen to them 6 minutes after that? It's called a deterrent.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
-------Yes clearly it is so truly democratic here that posts on news websites with factual but 'inconvenient' information are deleted. How right your are.-----
So, Japan doesn't allow criticism of its government? Funny.... there seems to be an awful lot of that posted here. Maybe they haven't gotten to it yet?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Yes, it was nefarious and not something either government is proud of. I always feel a bit sickened whenever I read about our giving the likes of Kishi and other war criminals the VIP treatment.
But should it not have been done? Sure, with hindsight one can posit that the Cold War might have been won without this or that CIA coup, but one must remember the geopolitical situation in the 50s.
The Soviet Union and its beneficiaries were not much less a threat to the world than Germany and Japan had been, and they certainly didn't play by the rules, so we could hardly afford to, either.
It's far more significant that America, by imposing democratic rule, gave the Japanese people sovereignty over their nation; something their own leaders never did. Not to mention freedom of speech, equality of women, etc.
And the LDP, for all its faults, did raise the standard of living of Japanese people to among the highest in the world, after all.
As for your assertion that Japan is 'antagonizing' its neighbors (i.e. NKorea and China), I confess i've never heard that one before. I'd love to hear more.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Funny that you 'respect' countries where people cannot choose their leaders and have no rights, yet refer to people who in democratic societies as 'under dominion.'
13 ( +19 / -6 )
SOME of Japan's leaders were considering "negotiations" (call them 'peace talks' if it serves one's purpose) on terms they found favorable given their situation. Namely, they insisted on retention of the Japanese polity, meaning they keep their grip on power.
Of course the allies found this unacceptable. And not unreasonably so.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
@Cristopher Glen and Vanessa Carlisle
I'm with y'all on that one. The biggest problem with the argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is that this presumes the leaders of Japan were that concerned with the lives of their citizens. There's little evidence they were.
After all that Japan had lost in the war up to that point, the lives of 100,000 civilians would not have altered their resolve. Invasion by the Soviets was a far graver threat, and this weighed much heavier in the minds of the Army command, who held the real power. And once Hirohito heard that he would be spared, that was enough to satisfy him.
After years of studying this, I too came to the realization that the atomic bombings merely did something like give them a public excuse to surrender.
Could the surrender have been brought without the atomic bombs? Would the Soviet invasion, and American concession to keep Hirohito on the throne, been enough?
Japanese leaders, in post-war interviews, gave varying and contradictory opinions on this question. Some said it could have happened without the atomic bombs, but most said it couldn't have.
That's about the closest thing to a final answer we're ever going to get, I'm afraid.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
It's telling that revisionists will always quote such remorseful US officials when seeking to show the Japanese were 'about to surrender'.
They will never present any Japanese evidence of such an intention. That's because none exists. All the records of meetings and even private discussions among the war council and the emperor show the opposite was true.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
(surprise), the Japanese leadership.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
One can indeed find high-ranking US officials who offered opinions years after the war that Japan was ready to surrender, or had even offered to do so. Presenting such quotes is a common approach to portraying the atomic bombings as unjustified.
The problem is, even figures as authoritative as Leahy, King, and Nimitz can offer no evidence to support these opinions (not that they were pressed to by their interviewers). I don't know why they said these things. Perhaps they were, understandably, disturbed by the scenes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think you'll agree that if one were trying to learn the intentions of the Japanese leadership regarding possible surrender, one should simply look to the the records and statements of (s
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
The Japanese offered to surrender in April? That is complete nonsense.
I can only suppose you are referring to the abortive plan hatched by some members in the Japanese oligarchy to approach Stalin with the idea that he might facilitate "negotiations" (NOT surrender) with the US.
They envisioned something like "OK, we've won a few, you've won a few, let's wind this thing down. How bout this: you can have the Philippines and Indonesia back, but we keep Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria. And of course the Army and emperor retain total control here at home. That sounds fair, don't you think?"
To be clear; No One in the amorphous Japanese leadership even considered giving up all conquered territory, much less consenting to letting the US remove them from power, try them for war crimes, and turn Japan into a democracy. And please, don't take my word for it, they are all on record saying exactly this, time and time again throughout the final months of the war.
There never was a Japanese offer of surrender, nor anything even resembling one, prior to the atomic bombings and Soviet declaration of war, no matter how much some people with ulterior motives would like to imagine there was.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
I think you're right. They have used the reprehensible comments of a few cretins online to scapegoat racism/misogyny for the failure of the new trilogy, when in truth they were just flat, forgettable movies.
(OK, relative failure; I know they made billions, but does anyone really care about these movies? Do people wear Rise of Skywalker T-shirts? Like Avatar, everyone saw it but nobody remembers it. They aren't building on the legacy, they're just selling it out, and the Disney execs know they can't do that for long.)
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Posted in: U.S. steps into China's bitcoin breach