On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
Maybe she was born in Australia.
But she's torn.
Please can we check her Tebbit chip? I'm game to have a look...
I think I will take the word of the calibre of men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Hoover over just about any armchair generals or theorists you can muster... And there were plenty of others on the inside who knew the Japanese had already agreed to surrender in principle.
Rear-Admiral Ellis Zacharias, (later Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence) Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare." - Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender." - Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
Who said anything about armchair generals? I said people who were involved in the decision, which people like Eisenhower were not. You seem to think that I am defending the decision to drop the bomb. I most certainly am not. Passing judgement on events in history is a fools game. I merely try and understand them.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
I don't think it is that outlandish, or really what we might think of as alternate history.
Many justify Hiroshima compared to a hypothetical invasion, while refusing to judge it based on other hypothetical scenarios.
O/T- looking at the strength of feeling that still exists, it seems to me that at some point the USA will seek to draw some kind of line in the future by issuing an apology over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To horrifically and indiscriminately murder civilians in this way, is something you don't want on your long term legacy as a country.
Under a left-wing President, they may end up apologising for having fought the Japanese in the first place. I think that the US and most Western countries are hopelessly decadent.
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
Maybe she was born in Australia.
But she's torn.
That is a terrible pun!
Good song though.
It;s a really good song with a lot of history, IIRC Beth was the fourth or fifth artist to try and make it a hit in English speaking territories.
The video is what made it, I think. It's a prelude to P!nk's stuff.
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
She's taken the citizenship test and has a British passport.
I think I will take the word of the calibre of men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Hoover over just about any armchair generals or theorists you can muster... And there were plenty of others on the inside who knew the Japanese had already agreed to surrender in principle.
Rear-Admiral Ellis Zacharias, (later Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence) Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare." - Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender." - Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
I don't think it is that outlandish, or really what we might think of as alternate history.
Many justify Hiroshima compared to a hypothetical invasion, while refusing to judge it based on other hypothetical scenarios.
If the Japanese wanted to surrender then perhaps they should have said so, rather than fly suicide pilots into Allied ships and fight to nearly the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinowa, killing over 12 000 US soldiers as late as June 45, and all starting after the mass conventional bombing.
I agree with tyson that mass extermination of enemy civilians should no longer be a legitimate war tactic. It is why Trident is obselete.
But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:
"The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia... "I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." - Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Peace could have been had with the Japanese at any point in 1945....... Had we accepted that Japan continue to rule Formosa, Manchuria, Shanghai, Nanking, Peking, Korea, and Coastal China. Perhaps we should. They would certainly have given up Malaya and the East Indies.
The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
I think I will take the word of the calibre of men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Hoover over just about any armchair generals or theorists you can muster... And there were plenty of others on the inside who knew the Japanese had already agreed to surrender in principle.
Rear-Admiral Ellis Zacharias, (later Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence) Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare." - Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender." - Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
Who said anything about armchair generals? I said people who were involved in the decision, which people like Eisenhower were not. You seem to think that I am defending the decision to drop the bomb. I most certainly am not. Passing judgement on events in history is a fools game. I merely try and understand them.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
I don't think it is that outlandish, or really what we might think of as alternate history.
Many justify Hiroshima compared to a hypothetical invasion, while refusing to judge it based on other hypothetical scenarios.
You can judge historical figures if you like, I think it's a daft thing to do. Trying to understand why a person in history did a certain thing is hard enough for me.
Who said anything about armchair generals? I said people who were involved in the decision, which people like Eisenhower were not. You seem to think that I am defending the decision to drop the bomb. I most certainly am not. Passing judgement on events in history is a fools game. I merely try and understand them.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
It is clear then that 200,000 people were vaporized purely:-
i) to satisfy the Allies' 'unconditional surrender' posturing. (Surrender when it came was on the terms the Japanese were seeking. They kept the Mikado, and were treated under the principles of the Atlantic Charter)
ii) to permit the Americans to test their expensive 'new toys' while there was still an opportunity. (just as they had with the napalming of the French city of Royan in April 1945)
iii) to begin the next chapter of the game with a spectacular demonstration for the benefit of the Soviets...
Herbert Hoover, a useless President, but undoubtedly the most impressive human being ever to occupy that office, wrote to a military friend on August 8th, 1945.
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
I think I will take the word of the calibre of men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Hoover over just about any armchair generals or theorists you can muster... And there were plenty of others on the inside who knew the Japanese had already agreed to surrender in principle.
Rear-Admiral Ellis Zacharias, (later Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence) Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare." - Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:
"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender." - Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
I don't think it is that outlandish, or really what we might think of as alternate history.
Many justify Hiroshima compared to a hypothetical invasion, while refusing to judge it based on other hypothetical scenarios.
If the Japanese wanted to surrender then perhaps they should have said so, rather than fly suicide pilots into Allied ships and fight to nearly the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinowa, killing over 12 000 US soldiers as late as June 45, and all starting after the mass conventional bombing.
I agree with tyson that mass extermination of enemy civilians should no longer be a legitimate war tactic. It is why Trident is obselete.
What's your alternative, towards people who possess ICBMs?
I agree with tyson that mass extermination of enemy civilians should no longer be a legitimate war tactic. It is why Trident is obselete.
I agree that mass extermination of enemy civilians should no longer be a legitimate war tactic. Trident shouldn't be used for such purposes. However because it has other military uses it is not obsolete. (Sic)
Who said anything about armchair generals? I said people who were involved in the decision, which people like Eisenhower were not. You seem to think that I am defending the decision to drop the bomb. I most certainly am not. Passing judgement on events in history is a fools game. I merely try and understand them.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
It is clear then that 200,000 people were vaporized purely:-
i) to satisfy the Allies' 'unconditional surrender' posturing. (Surrender when it came was on the terms the Japanese were seeking. They kept the Mikado, and were treated under the principles of the Atlantic Charter)
ii) to permit the Americans to test their expensive 'new toys' while there was still an opportunity. (just as they had with the napalming of the French city of Royan in April 1945)
iii) to begin the next chapter of the game with a spectacular demonstration for the benefit of the Soviets...
Herbert Hoover, a useless President, but undoubtedly the most impressive human being ever to occupy that office wrote to a military friend on August 8th, 1945.
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
i) is crucial. What was wrong about seeking unconditional surrender?
I sense rising disillusionment with not only Westminster but the Establishment in general - the Kids Company, paedophile rings, H of L in general, FTSE Directors feeding each others packages by sitting on remuneration committees, Osbo's City mates and RBS sell off etc.
An obvious line of attack for Corbyn is to present himself as someone who is prepared to fearlessly clean out the Establishment's stables, barrels of rotten apples and the privileged Tim (& Timesses) Nice but Dims who sit on charity boards and quangos. Corbyn could ruthlessly name and shame under Parliamentary privilage and get the MSM off their asses and chasing Establishment misbehaving dragons as opposed to imaginary SNP trolls.
I was not suprised to see career politician Matthew Hancock's name mentioned in the Kids Company scandal. The whole Kids Company mess could have been averted if there were more people with common sense and real world experience.
A bit of curiosity and scepticism wouldn't go amiss.
Unfortunately people are too willing to believe what they hope is true rather than look at the facts and ask some basic questions. Given how many politicians are lawyers, this is odd.
Whole industries, careers and reputations have been built on what is little more than bullshit.
Speaking from experience are we?
(I like the concept of the 'still small voice of calm' though. I might use that. The "Wall Street Journal test" has always struck me a trite and encourage behaviour through far, not behaviour because it's right)
Who said anything about armchair generals? I said people who were involved in the decision, which people like Eisenhower were not. You seem to think that I am defending the decision to drop the bomb. I most certainly am not. Passing judgement on events in history is a fools game. I merely try and understand them.
In this case the Allies had decided that only unconditional surrender would be sufficient. Japan refused and wanted conditions. How then to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
Suggesting that the allies could have demanded something other than unconditional surrender is another ball game and really into the realms of "what if" alternate history. They could have done but they didn't.
It is clear then that 200,000 people were vaporized purely:-
i) to satisfy the Allies' 'unconditional surrender' posturing. (Surrender when it came was on the terms the Japanese were seeking. They kept the Mikado, and were treated under the principles of the Atlantic Charter)
ii) to permit the Americans to test their expensive 'new toys' while there was still an opportunity. (just as they had with the napalming of the French city of Royan in April 1945)
iii) to begin the next chapter of the game with a spectacular demonstration for the benefit of the Soviets...
Herbert Hoover, a useless President, but undoubtedly the most impressive human being ever to occupy that office wrote to a military friend on August 8th, 1945.
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
If all that is clear to you then thats fine by me.
Oh, did herbert Hoover say anything about the US fire bombing of Japanese cities using conventional bombs? Up to 130,000 people were killed in one raid on Tokyo. I only ask because from where I sit I can't see much difference between that and the use of an atomic weapon.
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
She's taken the citizenship test and has a British passport.
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
She's taken the citizenship test and has a British passport.
That's good enough for me.
Is that because you fancy her?
I may have done once, but now I'm a married man
Yes, married men only fancy their wives
They don't post anything the the contrary on a public forum, anyway!
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
She's taken the citizenship test and has a British passport.
That's good enough for me.
Is that because you fancy her?
I may have done once, but now I'm a married man
Yes, married men only fancy their wives
They don't post anything the the contrary on a public forum, anyway!
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 45s46 seconds ago I've just backed Stuart Broad at 5/1 on Betfair to make the top 3 in the SPOTY election. He's 21/1 to win it.
I've got two problems with this.
First, is Broad the number 1 cricketing choice? Root and Anderson must surely have good claims too.
Secondly, is the cricketing grouping strong enough? I know that for example the cycling "gotv" is very good. But cricketers don't win this sort of thing do they? Only Flintoff a decade ago since the turn of the millennium.
I just took the 21/1 for £19. I reckon that's value - bowling the Aussies out for 60 is the kind of achievement that catches the imagination. Not the sort of thing that happens every year. Broad is the man at the centre of that.
When the sporting year is reviewed, today's England performance will get top billing; not F1 or the Tour De France.
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
On Natalie Imbruglia: She was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, and last time I heard her speak had an Australian accent. Sure, her mother has British ancestry, but that's true for many Australians - doesn't make them British. On her citizenship: Murdoch is a naturalised American citizen, but I doubt many see him as an American.
She's taken the citizenship test and has a British passport.
That's good enough for me.
Is that because you fancy her?
I may have done once, but now I'm a married man
Yes, married men only fancy their wives
They don't post anything the the contrary on a public forum, anyway!
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
I didn't think the overall standard was very good.
I thought some people (including Fiorina) had some good answers, but to say they were "well prepared" I find an odd statement. Many answers weren't well expressed.
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Given the poor performance in pre-season (lost everything) and the fact the crowd aren't particularly enamoured of him anyway, Steve McClaren at Newcastle to be first out might be an interesting bet. Clearly you never know what Ashley is thinking, but things aren't going well already...
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Given the poor performance in pre-season (lost everything) and the fact the crowd aren't particularly enamoured of him anyway, Steve McClaren at Newcastle to be first out might be an interesting bet. Clearly you never know what Ashley is thinking, but things aren't going well already...
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Said Berahino top English goalscorer, I think you can get 16/1
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Cyclefree junior caught the end of the Newsnight interview with Camilla B.
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
She is not slim, that is true.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
She does not know when to keep her mouth shut. The first rule of holes is that when you are in one - stop digging.
No! The first rule of holes, that every hole is a goal.
On the subject of goals, has anyone any good football tips?
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Given the poor performance in pre-season (lost everything) and the fact the crowd aren't particularly enamoured of him anyway, Steve McClaren at Newcastle to be first out might be an interesting bet. Clearly you never know what Ashley is thinking, but things aren't going well already...
Ashley never strikes me as a sacker. I think Ranieri is safe for the same reason, our Thais put up with a six month losing streak under Pearson.
The FBI was asked today if its investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server was a criminal one, after Hillary's campaign repeatedly insisted it wasn't.
The response "All our investigations are criminal ones."
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
If all that is clear to you then thats fine by me.
Oh, did Herbert Hoover say anything about the US fire bombing of Japanese cities using conventional bombs? Up to 130,000 people were killed in one raid on Tokyo. I only ask because from where I sit I can't see much difference between that and the use of an atomic weapon.
I can find no direct quotes on that (unsurprisingly), however I thought you knew that Hoover had devoted most of his adult life to deploring and attempting to outlaw such barbarity?
Anyhow...
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." - Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation", he [Hoover] told friends. "It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan." - Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
Well yes, The Calton includes Bridgeton (pronounced Brig'ton) the most horrifically sectarian area in the city. Those Flute Band Bigots are the UKIP voters. If they can't get the 5% in The Calton, UKIP are screwed in 2016.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
[...] "...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation", he [Hoover] told friends. "It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan." - Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
I sense rising disillusionment with not only Westminster but the Establishment in general - the Kids Company, paedophile rings, H of L in general, FTSE Directors feeding each others packages by sitting on remuneration committees, Osbo's City mates and RBS sell off etc.
An obvious line of attack for Corbyn is to present himself as someone who is prepared to fearlessly clean out the Establishment's stables, barrels of rotten apples and the privileged Tim (& Timesses) Nice but Dims who sit on charity boards and quangos. Corbyn could ruthlessly name and shame under Parliamentary privilage and get the MSM off their asses and chasing Establishment misbehaving dragons as opposed to imaginary SNP trolls.
I was not suprised to see career politician Matthew Hancock's name mentioned in the Kids Company scandal. The whole Kids Company mess could have been averted if there were more people with common sense and real world experience.
A bit of curiosity and scepticism wouldn't go amiss.
Unfortunately people are too willing to believe what they hope is true rather than look at the facts and ask some basic questions. Given how many politicians are lawyers, this is odd.
Whole industries, careers and reputations have been built on what is little more than bullshit.
Speaking from experience are we?
(I like the concept of the 'still small voice of calm' though. I might use that. The "Wall Street Journal test" has always struck me a trite and encourage behaviour through far, not behaviour because it's right)
I can't claim credit for inventing the phrase. It comes from the hymn "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind". But to me it describes well what a conscience is. What we need in the middle of the night, if we're being honest with ourselves.
Agree with you on the FT test up to a point. It's a start. If people think about how something looks they might then go on to think about whether the behaviour is wrong or not.
There's an interesting debate in banking at the moment about whether you can effectively change banking culture only through fear and punishment. Or whether you need more inspiration and good positive examples.
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
Well yes, The Calton includes Bridgeton (pronounced Brig'ton) the most horrifically sectarian area in the city. Those Flute Band Bigots are the UKIP voters. If they can't get the 5% in The Calton, UKIP are screwed in 2016.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
Well yes, The Calton includes Bridgeton (pronounced Brig'ton) the most horrifically sectarian area in the city. Those Flute Band Bigots are the UKIP voters. If they can't get the 5% in The Calton, UKIP are screwed in 2016.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
Well yes, The Calton includes Bridgeton (pronounced Brig'ton) the most horrifically sectarian area in the city. Those Flute Band Bigots are the UKIP voters. If they can't get the 5% in The Calton, UKIP are screwed in 2016.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
Calton (Glasgow) result: SNP - 55.5% (+25.5) LAB - 30.0% (-24.6) CON - 4.7% (+2.1) UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8) GRN - 3.6% (+0.7) IND - 1.7% LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
Srsly in Calton, the Tories holding off Greens and UKIP is pretty good.
Not really. Calton covers Bridgeton, which used to be the Tories' Glaswegian stronghold for reasons perhaps not unconnected to football, Ireland and red hands.
Well yes, The Calton includes Bridgeton (pronounced Brig'ton) the most horrifically sectarian area in the city. Those Flute Band Bigots are the UKIP voters. If they can't get the 5% in The Calton, UKIP are screwed in 2016.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
Comments
I thought the standard was poor in this debate but I am no American, and not a natural Republican either.
(Actually the adverts are quite interesting to me!)
Many justify Hiroshima compared to a hypothetical invasion, while refusing to judge it based on other hypothetical scenarios.
The format isn't really designed to let anyone shine, so they just do their schtick.
- plus, denuclearized is a great word!
- and Carly looks like she's pouting all the time.
The most ridiculous leading questions eliciting a variety of answers between poor and awful.
However the adverts do a decent comedy stint in between.
The video is what made it, I think. It's a prelude to P!nk's stuff.
I agree with tyson that mass extermination of enemy civilians should no longer be a legitimate war tactic. It is why Trident is obselete.
The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
Not sure that one would work in the UK...
i) to satisfy the Allies' 'unconditional surrender' posturing. (Surrender when it came was on the terms the Japanese were seeking. They kept the Mikado, and were treated under the principles of the Atlantic Charter)
ii) to permit the Americans to test their expensive 'new toys' while there was still an opportunity. (just as they had with the napalming of the French city of Royan in April 1945)
iii) to begin the next chapter of the game with a spectacular demonstration for the benefit of the Soviets...
Herbert Hoover, a useless President, but undoubtedly the most impressive human being ever to occupy that office, wrote to a military friend on August 8th, 1945.
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
"What's this about?"
"A scandal at Kids Company."
Pause.
"What's she accused of? Eating them?"
(I like the concept of the 'still small voice of calm' though. I might use that. The "Wall Street Journal test" has always struck me a trite and encourage behaviour through far, not behaviour because it's right)
I'm worried about you.
Oh, did herbert Hoover say anything about the US fire bombing of Japanese cities using conventional bombs? Up to 130,000 people were killed in one raid on Tokyo. I only ask because from where I sit I can't see much difference between that and the use of an atomic weapon.
But I think that interview was the worst I've seen: hostile, evasive, incoherent and dismissive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlLE-Lo3Kg
When the sporting year is reviewed, today's England performance will get top billing; not F1 or the Tour De France.
Carly did good.
Leicester are being widely tipped for the drop, but I think that we have a lot stronger team than last year and should be safe. But I am always optimistic until September...
Spurs will miss top 4.
Chelsea for the title.
I thought some people (including Fiorina) had some good answers, but to say they were "well prepared" I find an odd statement. Many answers weren't well expressed.
Michael Caine does the voice of a gecko in an ad.
Given our schedule and Jurgen Klopp being currently available.
In recent years it's been voiced by Max Branning.
Hoping (in purely financial terms) for a decent Scott Walker performance.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/top-english-goalscorer
All very faux-cockney.
Watford seem to get through a lot of managers.
SNP - 55.5% (+25.5)
LAB - 30.0% (-24.6)
CON - 4.7% (+2.1)
UKIP - 3.8% (+3.8)
GRN - 3.6% (+0.7)
IND - 1.7%
LD - 0.7%
Lib Dem Fightback...?
The response "All our investigations are criminal ones."
So it begins.
RIght, probably my tired ears... I did give it a google, seems it wasn't just me making that mistake.
Can't see Sturridge, Austin or Walcott holding together a season in the Premier League well enough.
Max Branning.
Not that you don't clearly know that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Wood
Anyhow...
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
- Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation", he [Hoover] told friends. "It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."
- Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
- Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
The app opens with a splash screen, where fox claim it is "The only Fair & Balanced (TM) app that gives you the Power to Decide!"
Yep, that's right, fox news have tardemarked "Fair and balanced"
What soap he's in or who he plays I've no idea.
It was Tory because the bigots vote Tory as it was their only choice. They now have a more racist party to vote for. And they do.
For what?
Trying to put you off?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)
The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
You are the PB Camila Batmangelidjh and I claim my GBP10.
Agree with you on the FT test up to a point. It's a start. If people think about how something looks they might then go on to think about whether the behaviour is wrong or not.
There's an interesting debate in banking at the moment about whether you can effectively change banking culture only through fear and punishment. Or whether you need more inspiration and good positive examples.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/cricket-on-5/episodes/eng-vs-aus-4th-investec-trent-br-day-1