I also see that Trump is now proposing an additional $200bn worth of tariffs on China. Just to recap on this the ostensible reason for starting this trade war is to address China's unfair practices on intellectual property, e.g. the requirement for foreign firms to allow Chinese firms a share of ownership if they want to sell into China.
I agree there's a problem relating to intellectual property, though it's not true that no progress has been made - I posted some links on that a few months ago I think. While the WTO would seem the appropriate forum for that grievance I wouldn't object to carefully targeted action, including tariffs, specifically aimed at the problem.
However, that's not what's being done in this trade war. Trump's aim is not to improve the practices on intellectual property, but to 'win' the trade war, i.e. export more to China than China exports to the US. As ever with this sort of thing, it's impossible to be certain of the long-term result in the US. It's possible that by making imports more expensive there will be a resurgence of home-grown industry, providing more jobs and boosting the economy. I think a far more likely scenario is that this will lead to a recession, causing a loss of jobs in addition to the reduction in consumer purchasing power as a result of price increases. It's extremely difficult to argue that the world as a whole will be better off as a result of a trade war, so hoping that your individual country gains benefits while only others are losers requires a lot of optimism.
Forecasting the long-term effects of a trade war may be difficult, but forecasting the short-term ones is not. If the current process continues to escalate there will clearly be an economic shock in the US as well as China. While Trump is a great believer in shaking things up, whether or not you can foresee the consequences of that, will voters continue to support him when faced with job losses and reductions in purchasing power?
No it doesn't. Republicans are flat out lying, without conscience or consequence. Lying liars and the lies they are telling.
That's a mischaracterization of my point. I didnt suggest any kind of equivalency in any form, other than that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are so anti-trump, that anything he supports is almost certainly going to be looked upon poorly. I think this thread is a testament to that.
Pinochet's regime took its own citizens, some still children, electrocuted them, dunked their heads in pails of excrement, suffocated them, and raped them. Yeah, Pinochet was a saint.
Edit: Nevermind, they are already there. Don Jr. has retweeted a Breitbart article that claims the children are being given "scripts to read by liberals".
This is frustrating. Now the debate is going to shift from whether this policy is a good idea to whether liberals are secretly orchestrating bizarre plots? Do we have to spend time refuting every paranoid conspiracy theory just because some random person decides to make up a lie out of thin air?
I don't see how we can address these issues seriously if people throw around random accusations just to keep others from discussing the core topic.
It's a pretty neat trick. Sadly, if you bathe yourself in right-wing media for 48 hours, you'll get a sense of how effective it is.
I'd rather bathe myself in sulfuric acid, and it would be less vitriolic, and it is literally called 'oil of vitriol'.
That's a mischaracterization of my point. I didnt suggest any kind of equivalency in any form, other than that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are so anti-trump, that anything he supports is almost certainly going to be looked upon poorly. I think this thread is a testament to that.
I think there's an element of truth to that, but only an element and there is a real danger of sliding into the sort of equivalency / both sides argument without considering issues dispassionately.
While my views about issues are on a spectrum, for the sake of making the argument I'll present them into categories below:
Good reasons for adopting policies I've supported Trump on a number of things he's done, e.g. talking to North Korea and aiming to ramp up the space program. While I recognize the reasons Trump is doing these things are not the same as mine, I'll still support him.
Arguable reasons for adopting policies This covers a lot of what he's doing, e.g. on the economy and taxation. It's arguable both due to the uncertainty of what will happen and your perspective of what's a good thing. For instance an economic argument from one side is that boosting the wealth of the rich is good for everyone due to a trickle-down effect and that the country as a whole is richer on average as a result. On the other side that argument could be countered by saying that income inequality increases unhappiness, irrespective of the total wealth. How you balance wealth and happiness though is a question of political perspective.
Bad reasons for adopting policies Trump is a great believer in using 'gut instincts' to determine policy rather than considering evidence. That's reflected for instance in his stance on climate change issues. I don't think it's responsible for an individual to ignore evidence on such major issues. There is a long history of that in American politics of course, for instance in the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism. To me these type of arguments where you believe in something irrespective of the evidence are akin to religious fundamentalism - and there are good reasons for not mixing religion and politics. I don't think this is a party political stance at all, but rather reflects more basic views about how you want society to operate.
Terrible reasons for adopting policies I would put in this category things like advocating the use of torture and the recent discussions we've been having about separating the children of immigrants. That doesn't mean I think there are no problems to be addressed, nor does it mean I think the chosen policies necessarily fail to address problems. It does mean though that I believe that governments should not consciously choose to deliberately harm people as a means of addressing problems. Personally I would have hoped that this would again be seen not as a party political stance, but I recognize that many people won't accept that.
My views about the spectrum of issues won't of course be the same as other people, but whatever your view of the spectrum I think it's clear that Trump is in the process of radically shifting previous views about what was acceptable within it. I have a tinge of sympathy with @Balrog99's view that this is a useful experiment and that we finally need to try some of these things to see if they work, rather than just talking about them. However, as an experiment I think it's just too dangerous. That's both from the potential direct consequences and from the legacy that will be left. Let's say for instance that in a few years time the majority of people in the US accepted that the experiment on things like trade wars had failed (and that there had been no escalation in the type of conflict in the mean time). Will the minority of people accept that view, or will there be the sort of 'doubling down' behavior Trump loves?
Where countries like France and Canada have failed, Countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have succeeded in influencing Trump. These countries have shown that when they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go "state-to-man" because he's the only one that matters.
These countries have focused on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Israel poured tens of hundreds of millions at Jared Kushner companies. You get the idea.
The Magnitsky Act was passed in the United States to combat the corruption and human rights abuses of the Putin government in Moscow. Canada, the EU and other countries passed their own versions of it. It seems highly appropriate now.
Foreign powers should apply international sanctions on him and his family’s businesses while he continues to conmit human rights abuses and continues to engage in rampant corruption. It's the only way to get him to see reason - his wallet.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is why it is so ridiculous that Trump refused to divest from his businesses - he susceptible to bribes and blackmail, he has other priorities more important to him than his job as President of the United States.
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong...
(...) Pinochet's regime took its own citizens, some still children, electrocuted them, dunked their heads in pails of excrement, suffocated them, and raped them. Yeah, Pinochet was a saint.
Again, i an not talking that he was 100% perfect. Only that was the less evil. Remember that was a lot of "guerrillas" from Cuba on Chile and USSR was trying to get more puppet states like Cuba. Chile now is richer than some EU countries. The alternative is Cuba/Venezuela...
I have a tinge of sympathy with @Balrog99's view that this is a useful experiment and that we finally need to try some of these things to see if they work, rather than just talking about them.
For the record...
I feel as though I have to point out that the data points I was referring to back then were in reference to tax cuts, North Korea and tariffs - not breaking up families and holding their kids in internment camps.
IBM has created an AI program that can debate with humans. The technology is fairly limited, but the machine can put together coherent sentences that are relevant to the topic.
What have I been saying for months about dehumanization?? What are things you know of that are commonly known to "infest" places?? I bet you anything your first answers were rats and cockroaches. Understand?? See where this is going?? This language is being used to justify this policy. How does this policy prevent gang violence?? And unlike last time with the "animals", he gets to the key word here before ever mentioning the gang. That plausible deniability doesn't work this time.
Incidentally, we are announcing our intention to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council today.
The President HIMSELF is now asserting that "professional lawyers" are giving asylum seekers false stories to recite to judges. He is saying that crime in Germany is up 10% because of migrants (in fact, it is at the lowest level in the last 25 years). All while the audience of small business owners cheers on every word. He isn't doubling down, he is quadrupling down. And then this:
Seriously, who the f**k hugs a flag?? I mean, how transparent can your play to nationalism get, when you end a speech by wrapping your arms around a flagpole to show how much you "love America".
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong...
This is pretty hugely inaccurate. As someone who studied History, I'd like to point out:
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon). -US has little to no say in how 'half of Europe" would go, as the Soviets had already conquered that territory by the end of the war, and there was next any expectation that the Soviets would willingly leave anywhere that they had occupied. Soviets had attempted to negotiate occupation of approximately half of Japan and Italy, but that demand was rebuffed by the allies in general.
The US's worst sin, diplomatically, was the concessions made in Yalta in 1943, in which FDR was willing to give the Soviets a lot in order to save American lives. Not our finest moment, to be sure - but then, I suspect this was largely unimportant. The Soviets werent giving up their gains, regardless of any treaty.
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon).
Do you really think the death-toll would have been less if we'd invaded?
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon).
Do you really think the death-toll would have been less if we'd invaded?
For the American side: no For the Japanese side: yes
I’d also think it would have gone on longer with no true winner emerging from the conflict and we’d have an uneasy peace with Japan to this day.
But ifs are for future speculation, not past. What’s done is done.
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon).
Do you really think the death-toll would have been less if we'd invaded?
To this day, we still don't know. Historians have argued both sides and there is still zero resolution on the matter despite years of debate. The basic problem is that both the bomb and the war before the bomb had a massive death count.
Ultimately, it depends on how much longer the Japanese leadership would have continued to fight, which is itself a massive unknown. They were pretty clearly losing the war by 1945, but they had already been losing the war for several years, and that still had yet to result in a surrender. According to the military ideology of the day, surrender was worse than death, and up until the bombs fell, that was how Japan was fighting the war. Presumably the Japanese would have relented eventually... but when?
It's kind of hard to estimate a death count for a war that never happened, especially since we don't even know how long it would have lasted.
For the American side: no For the Japanese side: yes
I’d also think it would have gone on longer with no true winner emerging from the conflict and we’d have an uneasy peace with Japan to this day.
But ifs are for future speculation, not past. What’s done is done.
I think it would have been higher for both, in all likelihood. That said, I do think the war would have ended in approximately the same way.
Keep in mind that Japan surrendered in part because of the US dropping nuclear weapons, but also because the USSR entered the war against Japan in August of 1945 and was rolling through Manchuria. Japan was about to be utterly crushed from both sides. There are legitimate arguments to be made that the USSR's actions were more impactful than the US's in ending the war.
To this day, we still don't know. Historians have argued both sides and there is still zero resolution on the matter despite years of debate. The basic problem is that both the bomb and the war before the bomb had a massive death count.
Ultimately, it depends on how much longer the Japanese leadership would have continued to fight, which is itself a massive unknown. They were pretty clearly losing the war by 1945, but they had already been losing the war for several years, and that still had yet to result in a surrender. According to the military ideology of the day, surrender was worse than death, and up until the bombs fell, that was how Japan was fighting the war. Presumably the Japanese would have relented eventually... but when?
It's kind of hard to estimate a death count for a war that never happened, especially since we don't even know how long it would have lasted.
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong...
This is pretty hugely inaccurate. As someone who studied History, I'd like to point out:
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon). -US has little to no say in how 'half of Europe" would go, as the Soviets had already conquered that territory by the end of the war, and there was next any expectation that the Soviets would willingly leave anywhere that they had occupied. Soviets had attempted to negotiate occupation of approximately half of Japan and Italy, but that demand was rebuffed by the allies in general.
The US's worst sin, diplomatically, was the concessions made in Yalta in 1943, in which FDR was willing to give the Soviets a lot in order to save American lives. Not our finest moment, to be sure - but then, I suspect this was largely unimportant. The Soviets werent giving up their gains, regardless of any treaty.
I'm glad somebody else fielded this rebuttal. I was going to but decided to wait and see if somebody else would address it. I totally concur with @BallpointMan on all points! I will also say that it is very likely that the Soviets would have invaded Hokkaido if the Japanese had stalled much longer before surrender. It's a distinct possibility that Japan could have become another Korea in that case.
The Japanese leadership were very ready to surrender as soon as their personal safety & continued prosperity was assured. After a certain point when the war is lost they began to worry far more about local civil unrest and how to preserve existing social structures. Death before surrender types were usually more mid-ranking officers. Similarly despite the myth of kamikaze the diaries of kamikaze pilots tend to show that they volunteered unwillingly (not a contradiction!), and that they were sometimes chosen by senior officers as a sort of punishment.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
Edit: And, yes the USSR's intervention was at least as important as the atomic bombings. Ironically enough some historians argue that Truman may not have been fully aware that Hiroshima was a city rather than a military base. Postwar he opposed military authority over nuclear weapon usage in a way that suggests he didn't regard them as being in the same category as conventional munitions.
The youngest children taken are being sent to one of three "tender-age shelters", with a fourth planned. This is an abomination. We are institutionaling toddlers and infants by choice. Baby jails. The psychological damage is likely already irreversible for many. Read this:
I don't give shit. The people responsible for this are evil scum who need to be removed from power before it's too late. Because pretty soon, we are going to get stories about deaths from negligence, and then we will hear about deaths from abuse perpetrated by overworked and out of their element employees. It's going to happen. Will we shrug that off as well?? To be quite frank, since they are STILL refusing to show footage of either the youngest children or the girls, we may have to assume the possibility that something like that has already happened.
To be quite frank, since they are STILL refusing to show footage of either the youngest children or the girls, we may have to assume the possibility that something like that has already happened.
This is one of the things I find most worrying. Separating little girls from their families is how human trafficking stories start. We need some confirmation that people are keeping track of these girls and making sure that no one is taking them away. That's how little girls end up becoming sex slaves. And that sounds hyperbolic, but... that's how these things happen. They separate girls from their families and bring them to a foreign country where they don't speak the language. That way, they can't escape from their captors.
Why isn't there footage of the girls? There's footage of the boys. Why isn't there footage of the girls?
To be quite frank, since they are STILL refusing to show footage of either the youngest children or the girls, we may have to assume the possibility that something like that has already happened.
This is one of the things I find most worrying. Separating little girls from their families is how human trafficking stories start. We need some confirmation that people are keeping track of these girls and making sure that no one is taking them away. That's how little girls end up becoming sex slaves. And that sounds hyperbolic, but... that's how these things happen. They separate girls from their families and bring them to a foreign country where they don't speak the language. That way, they can't escape from their captors.
Why isn't there footage of the girls? There's footage of the boys. Why isn't there footage of the girls?
I'll give you two reasons: #1 is that they only want to show the boys because it is easier for people to imagine them as hypothetical tattooed, machete-wielding future gang members. But #2 is that there is obviously something going on that they know they cannot let the public see without sanitizing it first. I just don't understand what the other reasons could be. Apparently some reporters said DHS told them we may see pictures of the girls facility two days from now. Why is it going to take almost a full week to even get a cursory glimpse at what is going on??
The Japanese leadership were very ready to surrender as soon as their personal safety & continued prosperity was assured. After a certain point when the war is lost they began to worry far more about local civil unrest and how to preserve existing social structures. Death before surrender types were usually more mid-ranking officers. Similarly despite the myth of kamikaze the diaries of kamikaze pilots tend to show that they volunteered unwillingly (not a contradiction!), and that they were sometimes chosen by senior officers as a sort of punishment.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
I'm curious - do you have any sourcing for this? As a Historian, I'm interested. My understanding of the Japanese leadership isnt particularly indepth, so I'm not entirely sure how the last, say, 48 hours may have played out. That said, what I have learned when studying this in school was that the Japanese werent itching for peace. The whole "We havent lost a war in over 500 years" legacy, and all.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
Like @BallpointMan I'm also curious. Your statement implies that Japan is not a democracy - do you really mean that? Can you expand on what you think might have changed about Japan if the war had ended in a different way?
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
Like @BallpointMan I'm also curious. Your statement implies that Japan is not a democracy - do you really mean that? Can you expand on what you think might have changed about Japan if the war had ended in a different way?
My reading was that Japan would have transitioned later than it has in actual history (end vs mid 20th century), not that actual Japan is not a democracy.
It's done the US pulled out of the UN Human rights council
They did that under W. Bush as well I believe.
Seems Republican administrations need a safe space from human rights. Their reason is they can't handle Israel being called out for human rights violations and stuff. Too upsetting.
It's done the US pulled out of the UN Human rights council
There are certainly legitimate concerns over the way it operates - including the decision to allow some countries with poor human rights records to participate. Nevertheless, Nikki Haley's description of a "hypocritical and self-serving" body that "makes a mockery of human rights" could easily be turned the other way around ...
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Al-Hussein also cited a statement from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who said that detaining children separately from their parents was “government-sanctioned child abuse” that could cause permanent and irreversible harm to children.
Again, the Magnitsky Act are sanctions taken against corrupt government officials and human rights abusers to freeze their financial assets. Many countries copied the United States lead and have their own versions of this. Canada, the EU, the UK and other countries should sanction Trump personally and his companies for his actions. Freeze his financial assets.
He'd stop his policy of child abuse quickly because the main thing he cares about is enriching his family.
The Japanese leadership were very ready to surrender as soon as their personal safety & continued prosperity was assured. After a certain point when the war is lost they began to worry far more about local civil unrest and how to preserve existing social structures. Death before surrender types were usually more mid-ranking officers. Similarly despite the myth of kamikaze the diaries of kamikaze pilots tend to show that they volunteered unwillingly (not a contradiction!), and that they were sometimes chosen by senior officers as a sort of punishment.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
I'm curious - do you have any sourcing for this? As a Historian, I'm interested. My understanding of the Japanese leadership isnt particularly indepth, so I'm not entirely sure how the last, say, 48 hours may have played out. That said, what I have learned when studying this in school was that the Japanese werent itching for peace. The whole "We havent lost a war in over 500 years" legacy, and all.
Some mainstream sources:
John Dower - Embracing Defeat (postwar) Herbert Bix - Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (pre- & during) Emiko Ohnuki-Tierny- Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History.
I'm not a historian by training, I just read plenty and have a strong interest in Japan.
Comments
I agree there's a problem relating to intellectual property, though it's not true that no progress has been made - I posted some links on that a few months ago I think. While the WTO would seem the appropriate forum for that grievance I wouldn't object to carefully targeted action, including tariffs, specifically aimed at the problem.
However, that's not what's being done in this trade war. Trump's aim is not to improve the practices on intellectual property, but to 'win' the trade war, i.e. export more to China than China exports to the US. As ever with this sort of thing, it's impossible to be certain of the long-term result in the US. It's possible that by making imports more expensive there will be a resurgence of home-grown industry, providing more jobs and boosting the economy. I think a far more likely scenario is that this will lead to a recession, causing a loss of jobs in addition to the reduction in consumer purchasing power as a result of price increases. It's extremely difficult to argue that the world as a whole will be better off as a result of a trade war, so hoping that your individual country gains benefits while only others are losers requires a lot of optimism.
Forecasting the long-term effects of a trade war may be difficult, but forecasting the short-term ones is not. If the current process continues to escalate there will clearly be an economic shock in the US as well as China. While Trump is a great believer in shaking things up, whether or not you can foresee the consequences of that, will voters continue to support him when faced with job losses and reductions in purchasing power?
While my views about issues are on a spectrum, for the sake of making the argument I'll present them into categories below:
Good reasons for adopting policies
I've supported Trump on a number of things he's done, e.g. talking to North Korea and aiming to ramp up the space program. While I recognize the reasons Trump is doing these things are not the same as mine, I'll still support him.
Arguable reasons for adopting policies
This covers a lot of what he's doing, e.g. on the economy and taxation. It's arguable both due to the uncertainty of what will happen and your perspective of what's a good thing. For instance an economic argument from one side is that boosting the wealth of the rich is good for everyone due to a trickle-down effect and that the country as a whole is richer on average as a result. On the other side that argument could be countered by saying that income inequality increases unhappiness, irrespective of the total wealth. How you balance wealth and happiness though is a question of political perspective.
Bad reasons for adopting policies
Trump is a great believer in using 'gut instincts' to determine policy rather than considering evidence. That's reflected for instance in his stance on climate change issues. I don't think it's responsible for an individual to ignore evidence on such major issues. There is a long history of that in American politics of course, for instance in the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism. To me these type of arguments where you believe in something irrespective of the evidence are akin to religious fundamentalism - and there are good reasons for not mixing religion and politics. I don't think this is a party political stance at all, but rather reflects more basic views about how you want society to operate.
Terrible reasons for adopting policies
I would put in this category things like advocating the use of torture and the recent discussions we've been having about separating the children of immigrants. That doesn't mean I think there are no problems to be addressed, nor does it mean I think the chosen policies necessarily fail to address problems. It does mean though that I believe that governments should not consciously choose to deliberately harm people as a means of addressing problems. Personally I would have hoped that this would again be seen not as a party political stance, but I recognize that many people won't accept that.
My views about the spectrum of issues won't of course be the same as other people, but whatever your view of the spectrum I think it's clear that Trump is in the process of radically shifting previous views about what was acceptable within it. I have a tinge of sympathy with @Balrog99's view that this is a useful experiment and that we finally need to try some of these things to see if they work, rather than just talking about them. However, as an experiment I think it's just too dangerous. That's both from the potential direct consequences and from the legacy that will be left. Let's say for instance that in a few years time the majority of people in the US accepted that the experiment on things like trade wars had failed (and that there had been no escalation in the type of conflict in the mean time). Will the minority of people accept that view, or will there be the sort of 'doubling down' behavior Trump loves?
These countries have focused on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Israel poured tens of hundreds of millions at Jared Kushner companies. You get the idea.
The Magnitsky Act was passed in the United States to combat the corruption and human rights abuses of the Putin government in Moscow. Canada, the EU and other countries passed their own versions of it. It seems highly appropriate now.
Foreign powers should apply international sanctions on him and his family’s businesses while he continues to conmit human rights abuses and continues to engage in rampant corruption. It's the only way to get him to see reason - his wallet.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is why it is so ridiculous that Trump refused to divest from his businesses - he susceptible to bribes and blackmail, he has other priorities more important to him than his job as President of the United States.
I personally believe that story have a lot of grey areas. Pinochet is an example of it Is like some Allies who nuked 2 civil cities in a country who tried to surrender many times and sold half of Europe to USSR. This doesn't means that everything that USA has done was wrong... Again, i an not talking that he was 100% perfect. Only that was the less evil. Remember that was a lot of "guerrillas" from Cuba on Chile and USSR was trying to get more puppet states like Cuba. Chile now is richer than some EU countries. The alternative is Cuba/Venezuela...
https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/marches-financiers/0301844694432-la-chine-se-met-a-vendre-de-la-dette-americaine-2185326.php
I feel as though I have to point out that the data points I was referring to back then were in reference to tax cuts, North Korea and tariffs - not breaking up families and holding their kids in internment camps.
What have I been saying for months about dehumanization?? What are things you know of that are commonly known to "infest" places?? I bet you anything your first answers were rats and cockroaches. Understand?? See where this is going?? This language is being used to justify this policy. How does this policy prevent gang violence?? And unlike last time with the "animals", he gets to the key word here before ever mentioning the gang. That plausible deniability doesn't work this time.
Incidentally, we are announcing our intention to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council today.
The President HIMSELF is now asserting that "professional lawyers" are giving asylum seekers false stories to recite to judges. He is saying that crime in Germany is up 10% because of migrants (in fact, it is at the lowest level in the last 25 years). All while the audience of small business owners cheers on every word. He isn't doubling down, he is quadrupling down. And then this:
Seriously, who the f**k hugs a flag?? I mean, how transparent can your play to nationalism get, when you end a speech by wrapping your arms around a flagpole to show how much you "love America".
What's the President doing, besides all the above? Saying immigrants are infesting America.
This is pretty hugely inaccurate. As someone who studied History, I'd like to point out:
-Japan never attempted to surrender to the US until after the 2nd nuclear weapon was dropped (For the record. I'm totally against the dropping of the bombs, and other events such as the firebombing of Tokyo which was *far* more destructive than any nuclear weapon).
-US has little to no say in how 'half of Europe" would go, as the Soviets had already conquered that territory by the end of the war, and there was next any expectation that the Soviets would willingly leave anywhere that they had occupied. Soviets had attempted to negotiate occupation of approximately half of Japan and Italy, but that demand was rebuffed by the allies in general.
The US's worst sin, diplomatically, was the concessions made in Yalta in 1943, in which FDR was willing to give the Soviets a lot in order to save American lives. Not our finest moment, to be sure - but then, I suspect this was largely unimportant. The Soviets werent giving up their gains, regardless of any treaty.
For the Japanese side: yes
I’d also think it would have gone on longer with no true winner emerging from the conflict and we’d have an uneasy peace with Japan to this day.
But ifs are for future speculation, not past. What’s done is done.
Ultimately, it depends on how much longer the Japanese leadership would have continued to fight, which is itself a massive unknown. They were pretty clearly losing the war by 1945, but they had already been losing the war for several years, and that still had yet to result in a surrender. According to the military ideology of the day, surrender was worse than death, and up until the bombs fell, that was how Japan was fighting the war. Presumably the Japanese would have relented eventually... but when?
It's kind of hard to estimate a death count for a war that never happened, especially since we don't even know how long it would have lasted.
I think it would have been higher for both, in all likelihood. That said, I do think the war would have ended in approximately the same way.
Keep in mind that Japan surrendered in part because of the US dropping nuclear weapons, but also because the USSR entered the war against Japan in August of 1945 and was rolling through Manchuria. Japan was about to be utterly crushed from both sides. There are legitimate arguments to be made that the USSR's actions were more impactful than the US's in ending the war.
I agree with this completely.
The US could have negotiated peace far earlier therefore... but then modern Japanese society might have taken a very different course- a little more similar to South Korea for example which fully transitioned to democracy by the end of the 20th century.
Edit: And, yes the USSR's intervention was at least as important as the atomic bombings. Ironically enough some historians argue that Truman may not have been fully aware that Hiroshima was a city rather than a military base. Postwar he opposed military authority over nuclear weapon usage in a way that suggests he didn't regard them as being in the same category as conventional munitions.
https://apnews.com/amp/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e?__twitter_impression=true
I don't give shit. The people responsible for this are evil scum who need to be removed from power before it's too late. Because pretty soon, we are going to get stories about deaths from negligence, and then we will hear about deaths from abuse perpetrated by overworked and out of their element employees. It's going to happen. Will we shrug that off as well?? To be quite frank, since they are STILL refusing to show footage of either the youngest children or the girls, we may have to assume the possibility that something like that has already happened.
Why isn't there footage of the girls? There's footage of the boys. Why isn't there footage of the girls?
Seems Republican administrations need a safe space from human rights. Their reason is they can't handle Israel being called out for human rights violations and stuff. Too upsetting.
I mean taking kids away from migrants? Sounds like a violation of human rights to me.
Also, no word on their speech on Saudi's human right record which is equally bad as the country the USA is against.
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Al-Hussein also cited a statement from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who said that detaining children separately from their parents was “government-sanctioned child abuse” that could cause permanent and irreversible harm to children.
Again, the Magnitsky Act are sanctions taken against corrupt government officials and human rights abusers to freeze their financial assets. Many countries copied the United States lead and have their own versions of this. Canada, the EU, the UK and other countries should sanction Trump personally and his companies for his actions. Freeze his financial assets.
He'd stop his policy of child abuse quickly because the main thing he cares about is enriching his family.
John Dower - Embracing Defeat (postwar)
Herbert Bix - Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (pre- & during)
Emiko Ohnuki-Tierny- Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History.
I'm not a historian by training, I just read plenty and have a strong interest in Japan.