Plus, Russia was about to enter the war as promise at the Yalta conference (therefore the US knew it was coming...). The US could just have sit and wait for Japan's surrender.
Actually, the promise (which the Russians were going to honor) was made with Truman's predecessor, FDR. Truman was surrounded by advisors who were more wary Russia and how the post-war world was going to be split with them.
Some say that was one of the main reasons why the atomic bombs were dropped, to show Russia who's boss. Then the Cold War and arms race happened... So yeah, dropping the bombs were pretty bad all around.
1 ( +7 / -6 )
Which would have given the US air force more time to destroy more of Japan’s cities. The same survey stated:
“…air supremacy and its exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan’s surrender and obvitated any need for invasion.
The "was the major factor" (past tense) implies that they meant the bombings that had already occurred were enough. That and their conclusion that the atomic bombs weren't necessary.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
They were teaching Japanese schoolgirls how to Kamikaze against US tanks with bamboo stick bombs.
Are you serious? They had a hard enough time convincing trained pilots. Do you actually think civilians would go that far? Do you actually think the Imperial Army thought civilians would go that far?
Look up the United States Strategic Bombing Survey conducted immediately after the war.
Their conclusion concerning Japan and the atomic bombs:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
0 ( +7 / -7 )
It is not highly debatable. Emperor Hirohito said so himself in the surrender speech.
A speech made after the fact under the watchful eyes of those who coerced him into an unconditional surrender.
This is why it is so critical that one must know the history in full account.
I agree. You should know the FULL account, not just one speech.
5 ( +14 / -9 )
Without the nuking, the war would have dragged on and on until millions more Japanese lives perished under the US carpet bombing.
That's highly debatable. The Japanese feared a land invasion more than battles fought on foreign soil, as any nation would, and they were probably more afraid of the Russians invading.
They were ready to surrender according to many accounts and didn't even realize what had actually occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki until after the surrender. At the time, the Tokyo firebombings were much more devastating in their minds (because they actually were).
0 ( +14 / -14 )
Korea should move on and stop whingeing
I actually agree, but you have to admit Japan has never made it easy for them. Half of Japan's elected officials (mostly in the current ruling party) made sure people knew that they didn't agree with the previous apologies and they continue that nonsense to this day. Japan is just as responsible for keeping this issue alive.
Like I said, if they would just stop protesting SK's harmless expressions of remembrance, maybe we could all move on.
-18 ( +6 / -24 )
A dead non-issue, literally no one cares about the bleating of South Korea
Japan seems to care a lot. They protest every time SK brings up the issue, and that in turn angers SK and causes them to talk about it even more.
The Japanese government expressed concern over the envisioned monument when the South Korean government announced the plan in September last year, saying that would run counter to the spirit of a 2015 agreement under which the nations said they had "finally and irreversibly" settled the dispute.
The 2015 agreement was ridiculous deal made between two ridiculous people. You can't stop people from remembering history and talking about it.
If Japan's previous apologies are sincere, they should just let SK talk about it and remember. They don't have to pay them anymore money, just stop picking at the wound that they inflicted all those years ago.
-18 ( +6 / -24 )
In everyday use in Japan, it's whatever the writer is comfortable with I'm guessing, which is Engrish in a lot of cases :P
But in journalism, I think the majority of the international press sticks with US spelling.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
That statement contradicts itself. She paid people (a foreign agent incidentally) to talk to Russians and hopefully dig up dirt.
She paid a firm who hired a former British intelligence agent to specifically find out about Trump's ties to Russia.
Trump apparently met the Russians in person.
This is exactly the kind of thing she wanted to know more about.
Both came up empty handed.
Did they now? A lot of leaks occurred on both sides.
The only difference is the middle-man, so it's a technical objection rather than an ethical one - because the intent and the ethics are basically identical.
No, the difference is in Clinton's case, she pays the firm for their service and their relationship is over. In Trump's case, he owes Russia whatever they want for potentially the rest of his life.
I'll keep doing what I can to speak out against those who would seek war with Russia to satisfy their domestic political agendas.
Who said anything about war with Russia? Why do some people think that there's nothing in between getting too cozy and war?
5 ( +5 / -0 )
And Hillary paid someone to talk to Russians to dig up dirt on Trump. Which is where the rumored golden shower videos came in.
She didn't pay people to talk to Russia, she paid investigators with the express goal of finding out how far Trump's obvious connections to Russia went. She merely continued an investigation commission that was started by a conservative group and abandoned by them when they realized Trump was going to be their candidate.
If one is illegal the other is. But I don't think most people really care about the ethics here, despite he "well, I never" protestations...
Hiring an intelligence firm to do opposition research is not the same as requesting dirt from a far-from-friendly foreign government.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Socialism, as it's practiced, requires greater government control, therefore a greater propensity to corruption.
I think capitalism unchecked is just as prone to corruption since it hands greater power and influence (i.e., control) to corporations. We all know the propensity for corruption when corporate greed is involved.
I think the key to any successful system is keeping democracy and transparency strong and having an interested and well-informed populace. That can be done in a democratic socialist system as many European countries prove. European countries that have not have to deal with constant outside interference and regime change.
I think that such military dictatorships actually need “constant outside interference” - real, imagined or self-generated - to stay in power.
So why give it to them?
Once in power dictators never share that power.
Especially when they live in constant fear of foreign-backed coups.
Historically, some military dictatorships were backed by the outside influencers. The only difference being whether the dictatorship handed over their national resources.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
But yes, it is also a failure of leadership and the rule of law. So much corruption in many Latin American countries, well, every country for that matter.
Agreed. There are some definite mismanagement and corruption problems there (made worse by constant outside interference). But as you implied mismanagement and corruption aren't exactly problems unique to socialist countries, which seems to be the talking point for some.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
The simple explanation is most often the right one.
In science, yes. I'm not so sure about geopolitical issues where there is no question numerous factors and motivated parties are involved.
You have two widely differing explanations for the problems here. I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
The problems in Venezuela might not be as simple as a failure of socialism.
Given the long history of outside interference and regime change in the region, sabotage of a socialist government that's trying to control it's own resources is actually more believable.
1 ( +9 / -8 )
I'm glad you agree with my point, but when you consider this lawmaker's other comment "Why can't sexes be just two -- man and woman?" it's pretty clear she doesn't share your idea of fairness. You're giving her way too much credit.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Thus the logical deduction that because of the statistically greater return of investment it's preferable for the government to invest taxpayers money into heterosexual couples.
Then the logical solution is invest taxpayers money on couples (singles even) that are raising children, regardless of sexual orientation.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
The fact is, to "live" is basically to find the best way to reproduce offspring with the ability to continue to reproduce.
You and this lawmaker seem to think heterosexuals will disappear if same-sex unions are allowed or supported in anyway. They won't. Your premise is faulty.
But most important is that she has the right to speak her mind, wanted or not, agreeable or not, and controversial or not.
Where did you get the impression that anyone is trying to stop her from speaking her mind? People are simply exercising their right to disagree with her.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Unfortunately, about 95% of the articles about the current POTUS published by the MSM--including Japan Today---are anti-Trump.
They may be anti-Trump, but they contain facts.
I urge you to broaden your perspective by adding a balanced publication to your daily reading, such as The Drudge Report, that includes many sources from alternative news sites.
The Drudge Report is your example of balanced? It promoted the fake birther conspiracy and Pizzagate conspiracy among other stories that have been thoroughly debunked. How often and badly does a source have to get it wrong before you give it up?
12 ( +13 / -1 )
Interesting fact of the day;
President Trump is looking into new and tough voter ID laws.
Another interesting fact, Trump thinks you need an ID to buy groceries. A true man of the people...
And whatever happened to the evidence that Trump promised would be coming regarding the millions of illegal voters?
Take away the illegal vote, and the Democrats are finished. Its all they have.
If the illegal vote was significant at all, Trump would have revealed proof like he promised. The fact is, when everyone votes, Democrats win. Most of the population actually likes the idea of things like medicare for all and social programs, that's just common sense. There's a reason why it's the GOP that pushes to suppress votes.
14 ( +14 / -0 )
So that’s ok for Trump, it still means he has been pretty much consistent throughout the polls.
OK, for Trump, bad for the 52.8% of the country that disapproves.
18 ( +21 / -3 )
Meanwhile the latest Rasmussen poll has President Trump's approval rating at an unprecedented 50% and climbing.
Unprecedented? I don't think it means what you think it means... Rasmussen has consistently pegged Trump's approval rating at around 50%, so it's nothing new. Meanwhile, the average of all polls shows his approval at 41%, an unprecedented low for a president this many days into the job.
26 ( +30 / -4 )
Two days about all the fancy things Manafort owns and implying that he got money from supposedly “shady” people By saying the “oligarch” buzzword all day.
Actually the buzzwords of the day are "tax evasion" and "bank fraud."
The "oligarch" is just background information on where the money came from. It'll probably take center stage in Manafort's second trial, though, concerning his failure to register as a "foreign agent" and "money laundering."
These are all real crimes that seem to refute the "witch hunt" buzzword. And if we're actually getting close to catching real criminals, why does Trump want to stop the investigations?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Let's see: The prosecution's evidence of Manafort's guilt is that he lives a lavish life style ("fancy clothes", owning and upgrading several real estate properties, etc.)
That's just the character evidence they kicked off with in the opening statements of the first day of the trial.
Relax, I'm sure they didn't charge him with hiding "tens of millions of dollars earned in Ukraine in offshore accounts" and "defrauding banks for loans" and "money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent and witness tampering" for the next trial without any actual evidence.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
This trial has nothing to do with Russia.........
Prosecutors also accuse him of lying to U.S. banks to obtain real estate loans in a bid to maintain a lavish lifestyle after his client, former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, fell from power in 2014 and the money stopped.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Still not related to anything he did with or for Trump so don’t really care either way.
It's too soon to speculate, but it's long been rumored among the New York business community that Russia (and Saudi Arabia) were the only people willing to lend Trump money after his multiple bankruptcies and business failures. Before The Apprentice landed in his lap, he was really hurting for money.
I get the feeling that's when he met Manafort and this trial is foreshadowing a Trump tax evasion / money laundering trial, and not the collusion he keeps denying.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
It is worth noting that this article fails to mention that Manafort is on trial for alleged tax evasion in 2005 and 2014; years before joining DJT's campaign.
2014 is only four years ago from now, and only two years before the campaign. That's not even half a decade.
Even Rosenstien said a few Fridays ago that no election outcome was affected by Russian interference in the last election cycle.
Nobody can really say with certainty how effective the interference was because the effects are on voter perceptions of the candidates. There's no way to actually measure that. But if you think things like the one-sided hacking into DNC servers and subsequent leaks via Wikileaks and paid trolls flooding the internet with misinformation has zero effect, I think you're not being honest with yourself.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
So Tony Podesta is not being prosecuted?
Notice the Podesta name and is not even mentioned here, which makes this a perfect example of fake news.
It's being reported that Podesta was offered immunity to testify against Manafort. It's odd that they don't mention that fact here, but that doesn't mean the other facts mentioned are "fake."
12 ( +12 / -0 )
They were, specifically.
Not to the level they are now. Trump even goes back and forth to this day about having a sit down interview with Mueller. Why would he even consider that if he thinks the investigation is completely corrupt?
Who upon recommendation from Rosenstein to fire Mueller who then hires his best friend who is also close friends to the FBI James Comey.
There was no way around an investigation taking place, largely due to Trump's own actions. Someone was going to head it and people were going to be hired. Since when do close friendships matter? Unless you can point to evidence of actual corruption, you follow the rule of law. That's the breaks. If you remember, Clinton put up with multiple Benghazi investigations headed by people who obviously had it in for her. (Zero indictments were produced there for "witch hunt" comparison's sake.)
From the looks of how the left have been acting that everything is blowing up around them, they should take your advice.
This is just silly. The only damage the left can possibly take from this is counting their chickens before they hatch and focusing too much on Russia instead of issues before the midterm elections. Otherwise, we can just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the fireworks courtesy of Trump and Co.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Yes, Most liberals don’t see 17 Democratic lawyers 13 of them donating to Democrats and 4 of them worked and or represented Hillary and not appointing any conservative or Republican to the Mueller team as unethical or unnormal.
Those are concerns that should have been voiced at the beginning of the investigation, not when the investigation is producing actual indictments and likely convictions. Mueller was praised by Republicans and appointed by the another Republican who Trump himself appointed. Complaining about it now reeks of panic and desperation.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
A few months in prison and then pardoned.
I know the president has that power, but it's SUPPOSED to be used when there's a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction. I don't see that here, which would make the pardon a miscarriage of justice in a way.
8 ( +8 / -0 )