Halwick comments

Posted in: Chuck Yeager, 'Right Stuff' test pilot who broke sound barrier, dead at 97 See in context

MadvertsToday  03:06 pm JST

Insane and fearless feats. Dropped out of a bomb bay of a B29 in a forties rocket plane is badass.

Not insane at all. Research of the unknown and challenging it often involves risks......calculated risks. At the time, breaking the sound barrier was an unknown territory. Who knows how aircraft controls would respond beyond Mach 1. That's what the X-1 was designed to do. Test pilots understand the risks involved and were willing to accept them.

It's kind of sad that those of the "Greatest Generation" are dwindling in numbers. They faced life as they met it and overcome any and all challenges and obstacles on their own terms.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Pearl Harbor dead remembered in ceremony curtailed by pandemic See in context

robert maesToday  10:58 am JST

if Japan would be honest it would not dispute facts. I am a Belgian, not American, this for the record......

You made very thoughtful and honest assessment about the Pacific War.

Japan started a south East Asian war for imperialistic purposes and might have gotten away with most of it had they not miscalculated with the Pearl Harbour attack.

This is not widely acknowledged by Japan or mentioned in the textbooks. To many here, the U.S. provoked Japan with sanctions; Japan had no choice but to respond with the attack on Pearl Harbor. But they don't answer the question WHY the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Or acknowledge the fact that Japan began hostilities beginning with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and subsequent invasion of China in 1937, with ultimate plans dominate the Pacific region right up to U.S. territorial waters at Hawaii.

it is nonsense to refer to the atomic bombs in relation to PH. They certainly were not threatening Tokyo at the time.

Well, to Americans they represent the symbolic bookends of the Pacific War, hence the connection.

Had Japan decided not to wage war with the U.S., the U.S. wouldn't have paid much attention to the conflict in the Pacific (they were focused on Europe) and atomic bombs might not have been used against Japan. Who knows? But on the other hand, sooner or later the U.S. would have become involved in the Pacific War as Japan extended its territorial boundries close to Hawaii and posed a threat to its Pacific Fleet.

The atomic bombs were a horrible punishment and I struggle with myself to find any justification for using them even-though I am aware of the different chains of thought for doing so.

What is often overlooked or ignored was the fact the U.S. Manhattan Project was initiated as a result of Albert Einstein's 1939 warning that Germany was making advances in nuclear research that could lead to the develop an atomic bomb. So the race began with the intent to develop to develop the atomic bomb first to use against Germany, not Japan. But Germany surrendered before the Bomb was successfully tested. There was still a war in the Pacific going on and the U.S. had just fought the Battle of Okinawa at a terrible cost. So the Bomb's focus, as a new tactical weapon, was redirected for use against Japan at the earliest opportunity.

Look, there was a war going on and any nation involved in wars will use whatever means available including new tactical weapons to DEFEAT the enemy. Morality or social conscious often takes a backseat during the war. Japan was also developing the atomic bomb and would have used it against the U.S. had they been able to successfully develop it. Look up "F-Go Project", "Ni-Go Project" and Dr. Yoshio Nishina.

But the Nagasaki one, Japan, in my opinion , could have avoided by surrender on August 7th. It choose not too.

That's very true. The U.S. repeated the ultimatum for unconditional surrender following the August 6 Hiroshima bombing, but Japan, for whatever reasons, chose not to respond or was unwilling or unable to respond, so the silence was interpreted by the U.S. as rejection of the surrender terms. The war continues.....to the very end. Japan's wartime slogan in 1945 was: The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.

Regretfully the impression I have is that what Japan most regrets is loosing the war, not having started it.

Very accurate perception. Imperial Japan's war thinking at the time, would not allow Japan to surrender but to continue fighting until the very end.......complete destruction of the Japan, if necessary.

Look up "Operation Ketsu-Go" for Japan's plan against the invading American forces and what Japan was willing to sacrifice.

To surrender would mean "lose face". Up until 1945, Japan has never lost a war. You are right, losing this war and the loss of face was regrettable for Imperial Japan......thoughts that prevail for some even to this day.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Pearl Harbor dead remembered in ceremony curtailed by pandemic See in context

Bernard MarxToday  12:19 pm JST

Ask a Japanese person what day is today. None of them will have a clue.

Of course they wouldn't have a clue to the significance of December 7.

In Japan time zone, the Pearl Harbor attack was on December 8.

Try again on December 8.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Pearl Harbor dead remembered in ceremony curtailed by pandemic See in context

Bernard MarxToday  12:19 pm JST

Ask a Japanese person what day is today. None of them will have a clue.

Of course they wouldn't have a clue to the significance of December 7.

In Japan time zone, the Pearl Harbor attack was on December 8.

Try again on December 8.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's defense plan won't include strike capability acquisition See in context

OssanAmericaNov. 7  04:11 pm JST

The JSDF is already quite capable of defending the Senkakus. Having "first strike" capability or even Article 9 under it's present wording has nothing to do with that,

Well, I don't doubt militarily the JSDF is quite capable of defending the Senkakus. But does the government leadership have the political will to order the JSDF to do so? So far, all I've seen is the Japanese government hiding behind the Article 9, claiming it does not allow them to settle issues with military force and instead sends ineffective protests to the UN, which China ignores.

The day will come when China will begin fortifying the Senkakus and claim the island as its own, and then it will eventually claim the Ryukyus.

When the wording of the Article 9 is changed to allow the JSDF to have a "first strike" capability and the government is willing to implement it when Japanese territory is threatened, then China may have some respect for Japan. Otherwise, Japan will continue to be subordinate to the U.S. and relying on their protection.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's defense plan won't include strike capability acquisition See in context

voiceofokinawa (Today  12:21 pm JST),

There is no need for Japan to have strike capability. Therefore, there is no need to revise the pacifist constitution the nation has cherished so much for the last 74 years

So long as the U.S. continues to cover Japan with its military bases on mainland Japan and Okinawa, Japan sees no need to have strike capability and no need to revise its pacifist constitution as you say.

But that continued U.S. umbrella protection won't last forever and when Japan asks the U.S. to remove its military forces (bowing to anti-U.S. protesters and pacifists) out of mainland Japan and Okinawa, the U.S. won't have any further obligation to defend that region.

Then Japan is going to have to fill the void and take responsibility to defend and ensure the region remains stable in the face of adversaries like China, North Korea and Russia.

You can't have it both ways, i.e., U.S. military presence out and Japan not willing to have a strike capability to protect the region in the absence of U.S. presence.

If Japan turned out to be no threat for putative adversaries, they would certainly sheathe their strike missiles as well.

Do you mean putative adversaries like China, North Korea and Russia? Japan has never been a threat to any of these countries. Japan's pacifist constitution wouldn't allow it.

But if Japan isn't a threat to China and North Korea, why is China conducting navy exercises and North Korea firing missiles in the region?

If they didn't, it's because they knew they were always exposed to the danger of being hit by U.S. strike forces.

So you consider the U.S. as the putative adversary, not China and North Korea?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement extremely regrettable, Japan says See in context

More likely regrettable because the U.S. won't be footing the majority of the cost impacts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan's defense plan won't include strike capability acquisition See in context

In order to have strike capability, Japan's Article 9 would have to be modified. Apparently lawmakers are not willing to do so. And since Japan is not willing to acquire strike capability, it will have to continue relying on the U.S. for protection and continue hosting U.S. forces on mainland Japan and Okinawa.

When China fortifies the Senkaku Islands, Japan won't be able to anything about it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan considerig large ship as alternative to land-based Aegis system See in context

The best way to counter missile threats posed by North Korea would be to nurture friendly relations with them instead of antagonizing them at every opportunity.

Isn't it North Korea who is doing the antagonizing at every opportunity with threats of nuclear destruction and missiles? Or is it in your view Japan has "antagonized" North Korea (and China) by merely existing as a democratic and capitalistic country? Or maybe Japan should become a vassal state under China and then Japan won't be "antagonizing" them any longer?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Chinese ships spotted near Japanese islands for record number of days See in context

Sad to see the development of the situation. Is China's move motivated by its desire to restore the old tributary system in East Asia, so that they think it's waste of time to engage in dialogue now over the territorial issue?

Evidently China wants to restore the old tributary system in East Asia as you say and believe now is the time to do so. The reality is that dialogue has not stopped China's ambitions.

How do the pacifist-minds who support continued dialogue propose to handle them now since they won't listen to dialogue and reason? Plea for more and more dialogue time? Ask China to continue dialogue for another 75 years in the hopes of a peaceful resolution?

Or maybe Japan should give up the Islands and walk away with loss of face? When China demands all Ryukyu Islands, then what? And in the end, should Japan submit to be a vassal state of China?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Posted in: U.N. nuclear arms ban treaty leaves Japan in a dilemma See in context

The world without nuclear weapon is ideal as we all know.

You all have forgotten there was a time when nuclear weapons did not exist and the world was nuclear-free. That was before 1945. Nuclear weapons didn't exist until 1945. Prior to that there were no nuclear weapons, only conventional weapons (and chemical weapons, although most nations agreed to not use them widely).

The pre-1945 world was hardly peaceful.

The U.S., Soviet Union and China avoided a World War III because of nuclear weapons and learned to precariously coexist with one another, despite the ideological and political differences.

A world without nuclear weapons was a world where major all out wars were thinkable and fightable. Do we want to return to those times again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan rejects nuclear ban treaty; survivors to keep pushing See in context

So what's China, Russia and North Korea's excuse or rationale for not signing the treaty and why aren't they denounced the way Japan and the U.S. are denounced for not signing the treaty?

People, including the atomic bomb survivors, forgets there was a time when nuclear weapons didn't exist. That was before 1945. Was pre-1945 world a "Peaceful World" where wars were unthinkable?

As politically impalpable as it is, nuclear weapons have actually promoted "world peace" by making major world wars unthinkable and forcing nations capable of waging wars to instead settle disputes through negotiations and dialog. Going back to conventional weapons will encourage preemptive strikes and world wars to be "thinkable" once again. Think about it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan, U.S. start talks on cost of hosting American troops See in context

American troops go home!

Until China makes military moves around Taiwan, Senkaku Islands and Okinawa. Then you'll all be crying, "Americans come back! We need you!"

Just like the Philippines regretted kicking out the Amreicans, you'll wish the Americans didn't pack up their umbrella protection and moved elsewhere.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Avalanche of early votes transforming 2020 election See in context

The best evidence of voter fraud will be if Trump wins the election.

The best evidence of voter fraud and election rigging will be if Biden WINS the election.....with duplicate votes, illegal aliens voting, throwing out votes for Trump, etc....anything to ensure a Biden win.

Then there's the BLM and Antifas threatening violence if people DON"T vote for Biden.

And the Democrats will insisting on recounts and recounts of the recounts until the count prove Biden won.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Posted in: Harris, Pence clash over Trump's coronavirus record at VP debate See in context

I see Harris was playing her emotional card to the people rather than stating facts.

IF the American people thinks they are getting Mainstream Moderates out of the Harris/Biden team, they haven't read the Democrat Party Platform Manifesto.

Too bad VP Pence didn't mention that even Putin thinks the values of the Democrats were similar to those of the Soviet Communist Party and that there was an idelogical link between the two.

It was a missed opportunity.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Posted in: Okinawa governor asks Suga for dialogue on U.S. base transfer See in context

If U.S. Forces in Okinawa takes the same (do nothing) attitude against the threats of China on Senkaku. 

So what do you want them to do? Fire warning shots across the bows of every Chinese Navy ship or fishing boats that goes near the islands? The leftists would be the first to loudly shout, "U.S. Imperialist Occupiers is a dangerous warmonger and trying to start World War III and should be ousted!!"

That's exactly the kind of provocation the Chinese are trying to cause.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Putin sends a mixed message on U.S. election, hedging his bets See in context

Putin sends a mixed message on U.S. election, hedging his bets

But there's no doubt he's hoping Biden will win and is looking forward to working with a Biden administration, praising idelogical links between democrats and soviet communism. He even adds "...that the values of the Democrats were similar to those of the Soviet Communist Party..."

https://yournews.com/2020/10/07/1867744/russias-putin-praises-ideological-links-between-democrats-soviet-communism/

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Posted in: Pelosi out to block Trump if disputed election ends in House See in context

Under election law the House would intervene if the Electoral College gave no presidential candidate the majority Jan. 6.  Pelosi is openly working to block President Donald Trump's advantage if, as he has suggested, he ties up the results of the Nov. 3 election.

In other words, Pelosi and Democrats will interfere and pull every dirty little trick to nullify any Trump advantage and tie up the results of the election to buy time to make sure every count, recount and re-recount until Biden wins.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Posted in: Comments by Trump's doctor on symptoms, care spark confusion See in context

I'm glad to read he's improving and recovering. For his age, he has a robust health.

When Trump disclosed his condition, I've read nothing but good things from the left , i.e., "Trump got infected and tested positive. Good."

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Posted in: 'Will you shut up, man?' Repeated interruptions, insults mark fiery debate between Trump and Biden See in context

No Biden fell into the the trap, Trump laid out for him.

That was smart of Biden, wasn't it?

Considering the person he's campaigning against -- the guy who was for the Green New Deal until tonight when he said he was against it

Yep, and Trump said to Biden, "You just lost the left".

Will be interesting to see what AOC and Sanders has to say to Biden the morning after the debates.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: 'Will you shut up, man?' Repeated interruptions, insults mark fiery debate between Trump and Biden See in context

He then doesn't do that, and instead explicitly tells a violent far-right group to "stand by" for action, and says that his supporters should harass voters at the polls.

Proud Boys online are celebrating the debate as the President officially calling on them to take up arms.

Because that is exactly what he did

Haven't heard Biden willing to condemn the leftist terrorist BLM and Antifa groups either. He's counting on them to help elect him, i.e, harrassing voters at the polls that if you don't vote for Biden, there will be more burnings.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Posted in: 'Will you shut up, man?' Repeated interruptions, insults mark fiery debate between Trump and Biden See in context

he was far from sleepy tonight, Trump spent more debating the moderator than Biden Interrupt Trump LOL

Actually, Wallace spent more time interrupting and debating Trump than being an impartial moderator. In doing so, Wallace was making points for Biden and making Biden's case.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Posted in: 'Will you shut up, man?' Repeated interruptions, insults mark fiery debate between Trump and Biden See in context

The debates reminded me of that Muhammad Ali vs Antonio Inoki "The War of the Worlds" fight in Japan back in 1976.

Ali (Trump) jabbed while Inoki (Biden) was on his back scurrying around avoiding the jabs, but got a few kicks in.

Wasn't much of a fight, but then this wasn't much of a debate, either. More like a street brawl.

Still, Biden refused to back away from supporting the BLM and Antifa. And he forgot that he is NOT the Democrat Party, but merely a puppet of Harris, Sanders and AOC.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Posted in: JAL ditches 'ladies and gentlemen' for gender-neutral greetings See in context

What's next... (In Japanese and English), "Welcome aboard all lifeforms...?"

Lifeforms? What about non-lifeforms, i.e., pet rock, carry-on baggage and contents? Excluding non-lifeforms would be exclusive and violate political correctness. (LOL)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan coast guard has brush with Taiwanese fishing boat off Senkakus See in context

Well, history tells us that Japan did extremely well without "Daddy Yankee", for thousands of years.

Well, that was a different Japan and that Japan was not as pacifistic as today's Japan. Also, that Japan did not have the restrictive Article 9 in their Constitution that prohibited them from using military force to resolve disputes.

All Japan has to do is spend more than 1% in defence.

By spending more than 1% in defence will be construed as being militaristic and that violates the Article 9. You can't have it both ways.

"When the Chinese come....well go call Daddy Yankee"

In calling "Daddy Yankee" while taking a subordinate role, Japan is not seen as acting in a manner that violates the Article 9. But at the same time, it continues to be reliant and dependent on the U.S.

We should continue our alliance with U.S. but Japan should definitely be more independent and self sustainable when it comes to security and defense.

But Japan is also going to have to take a more leading and active role in defending the Pacific region against adversaries like China. To do so, Japan is going to have to modify that Article 9 that will allow them to increase defense spending, build and be willing to deploy an offense-capable sea, air and ground military force, if needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: JAL ditches 'ladies and gentlemen' for gender-neutral greetings See in context

And no doubt "Sir", "Ma'am", "Mister", "Miss" and anything indicative or suggesting a gender will also be eliminated.

Ah, political correctness run amuck!

"Good morning AgenderAndrogyneAndrogynousBigenderCisCisgenderCis FemaleCis MaleCis ManCis WomanCisgender FemaleCisgender MaleCisgender ManCisgender WomanFemale to MaleFTMGender FluidGender NonconformingGender QuestioningGender VariantGenderqueerIntersexMale to FemaleMTFNeitheNeutroisNon-binaryPangenderTrans FemaleTrans FemaleTrans MaleTrans MaleTrans ManTrans ManTrans PersonTrans PersonTrans WomanTrans* WomanTransfeminineTransgenderTransgender FemaleTransgenderMaleTransgenderManTransgenderPersonTransgenderWomanTransmasculineTranssexualTranssexual FemaleTranssexual MaleTranssexual ManTranssexual PersonTranssexual WomanTwoSpirit passengers.

We are afraid our flight will be departing a few minutes behind schedule due to extended announcement times. We apologize for the delay. We also apologize for excluding mention of any genders that were created between the start of our announcement and the end. It was unintentional."

Whew.....I think you've got everyone covered, including apologies of unintentional exclusion. I'm impressed. Uh, which one are you?

For authentic gender neutrality, may I suggest y’all, as in, “Y’all come back now, y’hear?”

Can't use that it is from the American South, and anything connected with the South nowadays is a reminder of bigotry, racism, prejuduce and discrimination. Someone will be offended.

Might one propose Gentlefolk? 

Hardly anybody these days act in a "gentlefolk" manner. Besides, it sounds patronizing

The answer is that simple magic word "Everyone" which has been in use for a 1,000 years.

I think you are right and possibly least offensive.

"Everyone, please be seated and enjoy the rest of the flight and thank you for choosing JAL."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Pelosi prepares in case House must decide presidential race See in context

She said Trump has shown he “will do whatever it takes to remain in power.”

And Pelosi has shown that she "will do whatever and anything it takes to take Trump out of power."

But if the Electoral College is deadlocked or unable to reach a majority outcome, the question goes to the House as a “contingent election."

That won't happen, but if there's any indication that Trump is ahead on Electoral College votes, Pelosi will find a way to disregard and nullify the Electoral College and declare Biden winner on the basis of popular vote, even if those votes are highly questionable.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Trump went even further than other uber-rich to shrink taxes See in context

Throw in a little devaluing of assets here and there, and you too can pay zero...

All it takes is an open willingness to break the law....

Taking advantage of depreciation of assets is not breaking the law. All businesses, including private business owners take advantage of depreciating assets and writes them off on their taxes. There's nothing illegal about it.

But leftists, socialists and communists believes anything of value or derives income should be taxed (read: confiscated) to the maximum.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Trump tax revelations spark outrage among some, but supporters defend president See in context

And when he does golf, the US taxpayer picks up the tab...

When he plays golf or eats at restaurants, he, like most businessmen, talks business. So long as business is conducted, the expenses can be deducted as business expenses. All perfectly legal.

By the way, who picked up the tab when Obama played golf with other democrats?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Posted in: Trump tax revelations spark outrage among some, but supporters defend president See in context

"My guess is Donald Trump didn't prepare his tax returns, his tax preparers did it,"

Do any business owner, President and CEOs of a company prepares their own tax returns? Of course not. They have accountants who knows the tax laws do. What's wrong with that? Nothing illegal about having an accountant prepare your tax returns.

Looks like Trump has some pretty good accountants who knows what they're doing and knows the taxes and legal loopholes and deductions and took advantage of them. Nothing illegal about it all.

But I get it. The "rich" Republicans shouldn't be allowed to be able to use tax loopholes and deductions and should be taxed at 99.9% (Rich democrats like the Clintons, Pelosi, Sanders, Biden and Harris, etc are exempt.)

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.