LeTizz comments

Posted in: Trump nominates conservative Amy Coney Barrett for court See in context

Here's a question. A genuine question to those advocates of MAGA.

Can you tell me when was the last time America was great? What is the benchmark you're aspiring to?

Thanks in advance.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Posted in: Driver, playing Pokemon Go, hits and kills pedestrian, injures another See in context

The underlying problem is a near complete lack of traffic enforcement in this country.

More utter tosh. Almost everyday I use either Meiji-dori or Hakusan-dori. The cops are almost always around stopping people.

That might be the case in Tokyo but traffic enforcement is lacking in Aichi, especially in smaller cities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Pacific rim nations sign TPP deal amid protests See in context

nec123a

Not surprising really. The so-what apathetic attitude is why New Zealanders pay more for NZ produced products than people in the UK pay for NZ produced products.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan tells U.N. it has found no evidence of forced WWII sex slavery See in context

Triring

My point wasn't that destroyed documents proved guilt for the comfort women issue - although given the trail of discussion beforehand and my distinct lack of clarity - I can understand how you might have interpreted that as my point.

My point was more about war crimes in general. Destroying evidence does indicate strongly that there is something that person or group wanted hidden due to the legal or moral consequences - be it abuse of POWs, massacres of civilians etc.

For me the comfort women issue during the occupation of Korea is "highly politicized rendering an unbiased historical appraisal challenging". Murky claim and counterclaim from political groups with vested interests. Hundreds of thousands of victims or none.

All too often individuals with no training in historical analysis take soundbites from historians, out of context, and proclaim them as facts or twist "evidence" to fit an argument. People use anecdotes as proof of the bigger picture or citing examples that may actually be exceptions to the rule. So and so saw some women one day volunteering to be prostitutes therefore no women were coerced - or vice versa.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to get involved in the Korean comfort women debate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan tells U.N. it has found no evidence of forced WWII sex slavery See in context

If Imperial Japan had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong from 1931 to 1945, why destroy so many documents as the Second World War was ending or even during its immediate aftermath?

Documentary evidence of this destruction is rare but does exist. It is supported by other primary sources, such as diary entries and testimonies from civil servants and military personnel. We know that documents were burned by the military and political institutions of Imperial Japan. What motivated them to do this?

A simple goal fueled by fear and shame: to protect the perpetrators from indictment for war crimes.

For example, on 18 August 1945 the Imperial Household Ministry issued a directive to senior officials to burn important documents. It was feared the Allied powers would use these documents to press charges against Emperor Showa for war crimes.

In addition, on 21 August, Yoshihiro Tokugawa, Chamberlain to the Emperor, wrote in his diary that he had burned important documents following advice that they could lead to criminal charges against some people.

These are just two examples but there are more.

Irrespective of the comfort women issue which is still highly politicized rendering an unbiased historical appraisal challenging but not impossible, one thing is irrefutable. The political and military leaders of Imperial Japan did their best to eliminate the evidence of their actions in conquered territories to avoid facing the resulting legal and moral consequences.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: Jeb Bush links Clinton to rise of Islamic State See in context

It really doesn't matter if a Republican is president or a Democrat. The difference between them is negligible. It's just a matter of degrees. Both are socially conservative and economically liberal - by the rest of the world's standards.

Whoever is in charge, the United States is run in the interests of its elite. It always has been since the days of George Washington.

The War of Independence was not about the ordinary man fighting the tyranny of empire. It was a power-grab by the elite of the day. Ordinary Americans were no freer under the Founding Fathers than than they were under the British. Slaves were still slaves. And the native Americans were the victims of genocide.

The first American president was pretty much the richest man in the country. You can't lead the US unless you have an insane amount of money behind you. In a democracy, anyone can rise up. Look at the UK. Margaret Thatcher was a greengrocer's daughter. John Major left school at 16 and worked as an accountant. In the US you have to be part of a political dynasty or super rich.

A nation born in an unnecessary war - neither Canada, Australia or New Zealand fought for independence and are arguably far healthier societies with a better quality of life than the USA - just seems to go from one war to the next. It sacrifices its poor for the financial advantage of the few at the top.

Even now Americans are not free - they live in fear, a prison of fear that their own psyche has created. Like a bear in a trap they lash out. They live in fear of foreign terrorists, fear of criminals, fear of immigrants who come to pick their fruit, clean their cars, clean their toilets. They live in fear of being shot in the cinema or in high school or simply walking down the street. They live in fear of an illness that they can't afford to treat. Fear of being laid off or evicted.

Americans work long hours and have few holidays because they crave yet more material possessions - another car, a home cinema - or, more often than not, because they have to make ends meet - feed and clothe their families. They work, but they do not live. They are either slaves to their greed or work in effective servitude to survive.

I feel bad for a lot of Americans. You're lions led by donkeys. You deserve better but too many of your fellow citizens are sucked in by the media propaganda - propaganda Goebbels couldn't have bettered - and they make it easy for the system to perpetuate. They are hateful collaborators in corruption, in a defunct democracy.

So you're going to get this guy, or that guy, perhaps even a woman, but you're still not going to be free. Freer than people in North Korea or China, I'll give you that. Freer. But not free.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: England too insular for World Cup success See in context

The problem is not so much that players are insular - it's that the FA and attitudes towards technical development are insular. England needs to look at the countries that are successful, determine why they're successful and do the same! It's simple. In fact, the English FA did implement a ten year programme similar to the Spanish Football Association in the late 1990s, but it was abandoned after 5 years. Just think what Spain achieved. And think what England could have achieved if they'd continued with that programme.

England needs to implement a consistent youth development strategy as well as a consistent style of football. Players who are used to a regular style or philosophy at club level are expected to adapt to a different style when they join up with England. This is OK when the national team has a consistent style, culture or philosophy (like Spain or Germany), however in England each manager has tried to develop his own way.

Research shows that it doesn’t matter if the national team plays differently to the clubs, as long as the way the national team plays is consistent. The problem with England is that when each successive manager changes the strategy the players have to relearn or adapt.

No matter which clubs the players come from in Spain (remember some of them have played in England) the national teams in Spain all play in a consistent way at all age groups.

The England manager should be appointed because he buys into the strategy not because he is expected to revolutionize it. The England manager is always appointed ton the basis that they have some secret, magic formula that they are going to bring to the table and the players will automatically over achieve. When they fail, they're sacked and the next manager is picked out of a hat.

Like Belgium, which has spent years in the wilderness but is emerging with a golden generation of players, England will need to take a few steps back before it can progress on the world stage. Or just continue in the current cycle of mediocrity, replacing their manager every 2-4 years and celebrating the occasional quarter final.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.