生長の家とは何だったのか？

Israel : PM Netanyahu says Peace agreement must be negotiated, not imposed (Mar 20, 2015)

Israel : PM Netanyahu says Peace agreement must be negotiated, not imposed (Mar 20, 2015)

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," March 19, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, 'THE KELLY FILE': Breaking tonight, tensions rising between the United States and the one country in the Middle East that has been our strongest and most important ally. Tonight 'The Kelly File' is at the heart of this story.



Welcome, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. For the last 24 hours we've seen a mounting series of attacks by Obama administration officials on the newly re-elected leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. The fight between the President and the Prime Minister pushing out almost all other news today. And in the middle of this, Mr. Netanyahu today sat down with us. Now it is no secret that these two leaders have not always seen eye-to-eye. Still, the American-Israeli relationship is critical for both sides which makes it all the more perplexing that after the news broke this morning from the interview you're about to see as well as from other public remarks Mr. Netanyahu made today, the White House rejected an apparent olive branch. Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel now in one of his first interviews since his re-election.

Congratulations, sir, on a very big win. Let's get right to it. In 2009, you said you supported a peace deal that would recognize the Palestinian State but the day before, Tuesday's election, you completely reversed that. Why?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: I didn't. I didn't retract any of the things that I said in my speech six years ago calling for a solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian State recognizes a Jewish state. I said that the conditions for that today are not achievable for simple reason, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinians, rejects consistently the acceptance of a Jewish State. He's made a pact with the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that calls for our destruction. And the conditions in the Middle East have changed to the point where any territory you withdraw from is immediately taken out by Iranian backed terrorists or by ISIS. It's only a dozen miles away from us. Thousands of miles away from you.


So, the conditions are that we would vacate territory instead of getting the two state solution, we could end up with a no state solution. That is a solution that would threaten the very survival in the state of Israel. I said we have to change the terms. Because right now we have to get the Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table, break their pact with Hamas and accept the idea of a Jewish state. And I think that's what the international community should be focused on.

KELLY: In the wake of your statement earlier this week however. President Obama, he apparently sees the difference. Because he's now reportedly saying that he sees no path to a peace agreement and is threatening to abandon Israel at the United Nations which would reverse decades of history. What would that mean for Israel?

NETANYAHU: Well, I hope that's not true. And I think President Obama has set time and time again. As I've said that the only path to a peace agreement is an agreement, a negotiated agreement. You can't impose it. In any case, you have to get the international community to press on the Palestinians to go back, to go back on their unity pack with the terrorist Hamas and come back to the table. I think that you can't force the people of Israel to just elect me by a wide margin to bring them peace and security. To secure the state of Israel, to accept terms that would endanger the very survival of the State of Israel. I don't think that's the direction of American policy. I hope it's not.

And I look forward to working with President Obama to see how he could advance our interest, our common interest in the most difficult circumstances in the world, in the most dangerous region in the world. And what I said before six years ago about the conditions necessary for achieving peace is ten times more relevant today when the entire Middle East is being swept by these radical Islamic terrorist forces backed by Iran. We need to talk together and see how we can work together to advance security and peace.

KELLY: The AP is reporting today that the draft nuclear deal would force Iran now to cut its centrifuges that could be used to make a nuclear bomb by 40 percent from 10,000 to 6,000. Washington originally wanted a limit of 500. Are we conceding too much?

NETANYAHU: Well, you know, I spoke in Congress a couple of weeks ago and I said that we need a better deal, a different deal. Because this deal would leave Iran with sufficient capability. Six thousand centrifuges enables them to break out to a bomb very quickly. If I had my drudgers, if Israel had to seat in the table, I would say zero centrifuges. But I don't have to seat in the table. And if I can impress on the negotiating partners, I would say what our Arab neighbors say, get a symbolic number and 6,000 is certainly not symbolic. That is an agreement we would like but we could live with I said literally.

The second thing is, you impose restrictions on Iran's nuclear program. Don't lift them in a specified time but after you see that Iran actually changes behavior, that it stops its aggression in the region, stops being the world's foremost practitioner of terror and stop threatening to annihilate the state of Israel. These are the two changes that we would make. Increase restrictions on Iran's nuclear capabilities so you increase the breakout time and don't lift those restrictions until Iran stops terrorism and aggression and stops calling for Israel's destruction. That's the right deal.

KELLY: You suggested in a U.S. Congress that the better deal that we should strike would be Iran totally eliminating its entire nuclear program. And Secretary Kerry came out and said that's basically demanding complete capitulation by Iran and that will lead to no deal whatsoever. Is that even arguably a realistic demand?

NETANYAHU: Well, I just said that we think a much better deal could be done and that further much bigger constriction on Iran's nuclear program is possible. Because Iran was very aggressive abroad economically weakened at home because of the sanctions regime that could be maintained or even increase and because of the drop in oil prices. So, you know, you got them to the table only after you applied a couple of years ago abiding sanctions. That's what got them to the negotiations in the first place. And as long as you're not toothless sanctions, they'll just disregard everything. But the minute they saw there, the economy would collapse and that's happened in the last few years. Because of the tough sanctions that were imposed by the United States and by President Obama with our encouragement and support, that got them to the table.

Now, don't take the foot off the brake. Just pass -- keep on pressing. I think that's possible. And especially because of the drop in oil. So I think there's a lot of leverage that the United States can use on Iran. And I hope it uses it. Because right now succumbing to this deal would get Iran an easy path to the bomb and that would happen. Not by violating the deal, but by keeping the deal in a few years. That would endanger the entire Middle East. You'd have a nuclear arms race that would be sparked here by other countries. And I think you'd have a great danger for the United States and the world when the world's foremost practitioner of terrorism has atomic weapons. It's not a good deal.

KELLY: You know, in running for re-election, you urged your supporters to get out and vote. Warning that you were in danger, your party was in danger because, quote, ‘the Arabs are voting in droves.’ And some called that racist. The White House came out and said that you were divisive and that you tried to marginalize Arab-Israelis. Do you regret those comments?

NETANYAHU: That's just not true because what I've said was should be taken in the larger context. I warned of foreign money coming in to selectively put out just try to bring out supporters of a list that includes Islamists and other factions that oppose the state of Israel. Supported actually, this list was support by Hamas. I'm very proud of the fact that Israel's policy and my policy is to be the prime minister of all Israelis, Arabs and Jews alike. I've been funding billions into the Arab communities to upgrade their infrastructure and to better integrate them into the Israeli economy, technology, every walk of life. And the right of every citizen in Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike to vote is sacrosanct. I wasn't trying to suppress a vote. I was trying to get out my vote against those who were targeting foreign money that was coming in to target a specific group to bring down --

KELLY: American money?

NETANYAHU: I was calling my voters -- international money all over the place.

KELLY: But do you think America -- there is a question about whether America worked against you and President Obama and the White House in the election. Do you think that happened?

NETANYAHU: Well, individual donors from Europe and United States and Latin America, the answer is yes. I wasn't talking about that. And I'm looking forward. I'm not looking to the past. But I want to make it clear, my policy, I've been raised as -- I would call it someone who believes in equal opportunity. I deeply believe that. And I've acted that way. I called on ten days ago; I called on Arab supporters of Likud. And I've met them in the north of the country. And I said, look, there is going to be this effort, foreign funded effort to get the votes for that party. And I want you to be ready for that and get out the vote whether that happens.

That's what I was referring to. And you'd be surprised. We've got a lot of Arab votes, not -- I'd like to have more. But I consider myself the prime minister of all Israelis, those who voted for me and those who didn't vote for me, Arabs, Jews.

KELLY: I understand.

NETANYAHU: Those Arabs who voted for me and those Arabs who didn't vote for me. The same with the Jews who voted for me and those that didn't vote for me. That's my policy. It always was my policy. And Israel remains the one country in the Middle East where Arabs can vote freely and fair elections. That's sacred. That will stay. And my policy will stay as well.

KELLY: And my last question sir, what does it mean to you personally to wake up each day knowing that Israel's enemies stated goal is to destroy the people and the country that you love?

NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, let me tell that you I woke up this day and it's a lot better -- a day after the election is a lot better than the day before the election, especially if you win. That's the first point on this particular day, obviously. But I wasn't just elected because of any personal desires. I was elected because the vast majority of -- a very strong majority of the people of Israel want me to lead the country in realistic and what they consider the responsible way that we lead in. In a Middle East that is so dangerous and becoming increasingly so. So they want to make sure that Israel is safe and secure. And that's my obligation.

But I can tell you what I was once asked, what's the difference between the President of the United States and the prime minister of Israel? And I said Megyn that the president of the United States I believe is always concerned about the security of the United States. But the Prime Minister of Israel, and I can speak personally in the nine years that I've been in office, there's not been a day, a day that I haven't thought about the things that I have to do to protect the survival of Israel. And that's a difference. We're the country that is most threatened with destruction around the world and it's my responsibility to ensure that this state, the one and only Jewish State lives forever. And that's a big burden. But that's why I'm here. That's why I was elected.

KELLY: Mr. Prime minister, thank you so much for your time. All the best, sir. Congratulations.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

The resistible rise of Marine Le Pen

French politics

The resistible rise of Marine Le Pen

France’s mainstream parties must do more to counter the far-right National Front

Mar 14th 2015  | From the print edition 
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21646205-frances-mainstream-parties-must-do-more-counter-far-right-national-front-resistible

ALMOST 13 years have passed since the then leader of the Front National (FN), Jean-Marie Le Pen, shocked the world by reaching the run-off in the presidential election of 2002. The far-right party, now led by his daughter, Marine, came first in last year’s European elections. It is expected to be top again in the first round of local elections on March 22nd, with perhaps 30% of the vote. Back in 2002 Le Pen père was so widely loathed that the left and the right rallied around Jacques Chirac, who won the run-off easily. Today, by contrast, there is no such united front. Instead, mainstream politicians openly speculate about Ms Le Pen reaching the second round in the 2017 presidential election—and, just conceivably, winning it.

Ms Le Pen is a more appealing political leader than her father. To detoxify the FN’s brand she has shed much of the neo-fascism, racism and anti-Semitism it once embodied. She is working hard to strengthen the party’s foundations, so that it is acquiring not only more voters but also more members and greater political experience. The party has 1,500 councillors and two deputies in the National Assembly. The transformation of the FN’s image is striking: even among young people, to be a supporter is no longer taboo. Indeed, voting FN has become semi-respectable (see article (http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21646237-national-front-surges-polls-its-leader-strives-show-reassuring-face-operation) ).


The Marine blues

That is deeply worrying. For all the softening of its image, the FN remains an extremist party. It is fiercely anti-immigrant. The overt anti-Semitism has been toned down, but its xenophobia continues under the theme of warnings against Islamism. That is one reason why the FN continued to gain ground after the Charlie Hebdo murders in January.

The party’s wrong-headed economic policies still smack of its far-right origins. It is not just anti-immigrant but anti-globalisation. It opposes free trade and free markets, displaying a strong protectionist streak. Ms Le Pen rails against France’s membership of the euro and is hostile to the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour that lie at the heart of the European single market. She is anti-American and an admirer of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, backing his annexation of Crimea and his actions in Ukraine. It is no coincidence that the FN has taken a big loan from a Kremlin-linked bank.

It is possible that Ms Le Pen intends to carry her party to the conservative mainstream. But it would be rash to bank on that. Rather than speculating about the odds of her reaching the Elysée, France’s mainstream politicians need to work far harder to head off Ms Le Pen and her party.

The best answer is for them to deal with the malaise that grips so many of France’s morose voters. An economy that is barely growing, with unemployment at a 16-year high of 10.4% and youth unemployment close to 25%, offers fertile ground for the FN. The Socialist government of François Hollande, France’s president since May 2012, has belatedly embarked on reforms to make France more competitive and growth-friendly—but only after wasting its first 30 months. Time is therefore short. The fruits of reform may not be evident by 2017.

That is why both the centre-left and the centre-right need to train more of their firepower on the FN. They must not only expose its financing and its links to Russia but also attack its misguided policies head on. The country that is the world’s sixth-biggest merchandise exporter and home to its fourth-biggest stock of foreign direct investment cannot afford to turn its back on free trade, free markets and foreigners. A Le Pen presidency—however unlikely—would be a catastrophe for France, Europe and the world. That is a message mainstream French politicians cannot repeat too often.

From the print edition: Leaders 

The war against Islamic State

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/print-cover-full/print-covers/20150321_cuk400.jpg

The war against Islamic State

The caliphate cracks

Though Islamic State is still spreading terror, its weaknesses are becoming apparent

Mar 21st 2015  | From the print edition


WHEN the jihadists of Islamic State (IS) seized Mosul and the Iraqi army fled last June, they became the world’s most dangerous terrorist organisation. Sweeping out of Syria and north-western Iraq, they stormed southward, and came close to taking Baghdad. They murdered male prisoners in gory videos and enslaved female ones. Groups from Nigeria to Libya and Afghanistan pledged allegiance to them. Devotees attacked innocent civilians in Western cities; this week at least 19 people were killed in an assault on tourists in Tunisia (though the culprits are unknown). The IS threat has pushed together unlikely allies: in Iraq America provides the air power while Iran musters the ground forces.

As our briefing explains (see article (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21646752-sustaining-caliphate-turns-out-be-much-harder-declaring-one-islamic-state-not) ), IS differs from jihadist groups that have gone before, including its parent, al-Qaeda. It is uniquely brutal in its treatment of foes and uniquely competent as a propagandist. But what most sets it apart is its claim to have restored the Islamic caliphate. The revival of a single state to rule over all Muslims, dating to Islam’s earliest days and abolished in 1924 by modern Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman empire, was meant to eradicate decades of supposed humiliation by outsiders and Arab rulers who presided over the decline of flourishing Arab societies.


To Western ears, the pretence that IS is a government in office is absurd, a bit of jihadist braggadocio; to many Muslim clerics (and even al-Qaeda) it is heresy. Yet it has stirred a form of messianism. “Rush, O Muslims, to your state,” declared Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, IS’s leader. And thousands have indeed rushed to fight for and build the Islamic Utopia: even schoolgirls have abandoned families and friends in Europe.

The call of the caliphate has galvanised zealots. Yet, even as IS launches terrorist attacks, the good news is that cracks in the caliphate are becoming increasingly apparent. IS is losing ground, money and the consent of the people it rules.

The state of Islamic State

The caliphate has been pushed out of the Syrian town of Kobane by Kurdish fighters, backed by American air power. It is being squeezed in Tikrit (the tribal base of the former dictator, Saddam Hussein) by the Iraqi army and Shia militias co-ordinated by Iran. Compared with the peak, when it was at the gates of Baghdad, its territory has shrunk by about 25%.

IS’s funds are dwindling, too. America and its allies have bombed lucrative oil facilities. Most of the hostages have been sold or murdered in video-recorded beheadings. Now that IS’s forces are retreating, the loot of conquest has dried up. Some analysts reckon it may have lost up to 75% of its revenues. That makes it harder for IS to keep fighting and to provide services to the roughly 8m people living under its rule.

That may help explain signs of internal tension. The movement has started to kill its own followers, sometimes for fleeing before the enemy and on at least one occasion supposedly for zealously beheading too many people. Residents complain of extortion, violent repression and declining public services. There are reports of tensions between local and foreign members over disparities in pay.

Judged by its own standard, then, the caliphate is failing as an all-conquering state and model for society. That matters because a proto-state with a large territory and population to defend is also more vulnerable to setbacks than terrorist groups that are not rooted to a patch of land. Precisely because IS claims to be running a model Islamic state, its visible failure exposes the bankruptcy of its ideology and the hollowness of its claims to would-be recruits. If, as some say, the secret of IS’s success is success itself; then failure will gain momentum, too.

Even so, the hardest part of defeating IS still lies ahead, starting with the military campaign in Iraq. In recent days the operation to oust it from Tikrit has been hampered by hidden bombs and snipers. And after Tikrit falls, there is Mosul—bigger and more important, with a population closely associated with IS. The recapture of Mosul is vital to puncturing IS’s claim to be a caliphate. The nature of the campaign matters, too. The Iranian-sponsored Shia militias at the forefront of the fighting in Tikrit are known for having victimised Sunni civilians in earlier fighting nearer Baghdad. The fear is growing that, by depending so heavily on Iran, Iraq is being turned into an Iranian satrapy. If so, Iraq’s disenchanted Sunni population will cleave even more tightly to the IS jihadists as their best and only protectors. It is important, therefore, that the attack on Mosul is led by a professional, non-sectarian Iraqi army. The trouble is that the Iraqi army is demoralised and far from ready.

Hardest of all is the insoluble problem of Syria. Even if Mosul can be retaken, IS or something like it will survive, certainly for as long as it enjoys an unchallenged haven in Syria. For the time being, nobody is even thinking of trying to eject IS from the Syrian city of Raqqa: not the regime in Damascus, which wants to prove that the only alternative to IS is Bashar Assad; not the Kurds, who will not fight far beyond their enclaves; not Jabhat al-Nusra, the most effective rebel force, which remains a franchise of al-Qaeda; and not the rebels being trained by America, who are too few to make a difference.

Syria will not be pacified soon—possibly not for many years. Until that moment, IS can lurk there, controlling swathes in the east, destabilising Sunni areas of Iraq and biding its time until it has another chance to rise up. Defeat in Mosul could reduce the caliphate to a rump entity, or could lead it to disintegrate into a patchwork of warring fiefs, like much of the rest of the country. It would still pose a grave threat to the outside world and would need constant watching. But degradation would make it easier to contain than it is today.

Always with us

Destruction is much further off. As much as Islamic State is a cause of chaos in the Middle East, it is also a symptom. Its ideology feeds off Sunnis’ sense of victimhood. The group has taken root across the region, and especially where the state has collapsed. Defeating it is ultimately a matter of rebuilding governments in the Arab world—a task that will take decades. Cutting back the caliphate is just the vital first step.

From the print edition: Leaders 

コメント5

RisingSun > mike no  • 5 days ago  

Japan wasn't simply fighting with the US. The US, UK and Netherland (which had oil fields in Indonesia) was adopting bloc economy to cope with the Great Depressions and the trade embargo, like Glass-Steagall Act, was implemented to segregate Japan from doing business with anyone.

Hull Note was issued in 1937, and Roosevelt made the speech to segregate Japan in the same year. The export of Iron and Steel was restricted in July 1940, and oil and oil products in August. The Pearl Harbar wasn't really the begining of the war of Pacific.
  


Chris > RisingSun  • 3 days ago  


Japan invaded China in 1931 and Korea way before that. In 1937 the Nanking massacre had shocked the west. U.S. had every justification to segregate Japan to thwart their invasive actions in Asia and Pacific.
  


RisingSun > Chris  • a day ago  



> Japan invaded China in 1931

Are you talking about Mukden Incident? Manchuria is for Manchu and Japan helped them to be independent. It's a war of security so Soviet and Chinese communists won't keep harassing Manchu.

> Korea way before that

Are you talking about 1910? Japan had annexed Korea, not invaded. Just like the US annexed Texas or Germany annexed Austria, Korea simply became a part of Japan, legally by the international law.

> U.S. had every justification

Every justification to "free China and Korea"? Who said that? Did the US invaded Asia to get the invadive Japan off? Funny logic, isn't it?
  


Chris > RisingSun  • 13 hours ago  


I see what you are doing here. Trivializing Japan's War Crime by comparing it to other unrelated historic events, redefining invasive acts by stressing on the Communist Threat. You're using the typical historic revisionist strategies, and they do not get me because I'm smart enough. As long as people don't lose their minds, you are not to implement your twisted ideas on us. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Here's some history lesson for you:
> Manchuria was not a nation but a region in the Republic of China at the time Japan invaded. 99% of its inhabitants are Han who are the majority of the population at the time or Manchu who ruled China for 300 years before the establishment of POC. Manchu and Han had integrated politically, culturally and economically by sharing the same land. 
Manchuria did not become independent after the Mukden Incident. It became subject to the Empire of Japan in every which way. Unit 713 of the Imperial Japanese Army which forced civilians to do lethal human experimentation is a classic example or Japan's war crimes in Manchuria.

> Korea is not Texas. Korea as a nation had been residing in the Korean Peninsula for ages. Texas was a new establishment that entered the Union willingly, not by force.

Germany's annexation of Austria in 1938 has long been deemed as one of the first invasive acts by the Nazis to expand their territory. In fact, it, along with Nazi's invasion of Poland, had sparked the warfare in Europe. Are you suggesting the Nazis were following international law when they did that? You should take some history lessons in Germany, not in Japanese schools which barely taught you anything.

> US gave freedom and independence to all the territories they took over from Japan after the WW2. South Korea has enjoyed economic growth and prosperity as a result of being independent from Japan, and The United States which gave Koreans the freedom they deserved.
  


RisingSun > Chris  • 6 hours ago  



> Manchuria was not a nation but a region in the Republic of China at the time Japan invaded.

Nope. Japan had acquired the right of Manchurian Railroad Company from Russia legally under the treaty recognized by the international law, after Japan defeated Russian in 1905. The newly established Republic of China had claimed the territorial succession from Qing after 1912, but the situation was much like northern Iraq today, without the presence or the actual administration. Those terrorists-equivalent warlords were causing havoc everywhere in Manchuria, and Japan was simply defending its own right for the railroad from the invasive warlords. From 1928 to 1931 alone, trains were forcefully stopped 171 times, rubbed 189 times, rail equipment was stolen 92 times, and lines were stolen 26 times. It was a war of security.

> Unit 713 of the Imperial Japanese Army which forced civilians to do lethal human experimentation

Unit 731 is an unproven myth, and while those myth claims that Japan experimented on captured Chinese and Russian PoWs, Manchurians have nothing to do with. Unit 731’s task was primarily to prevent water based diseases like dysentery, and to research the cure, not the attack, in case Soviet use them. Why would Japan spread uncontrollable diseases to the occupied areas where Japanese citizens were also living? Just think with a common sense.

The Clinton administration had conducted a research to find ultimate evidences from the confiscated Japanese documents to prove Japan’s war crimes, and the research was completed in 2007 during the Bush administration. While the working group concluded that Japan was researching for the biochemical war, there is no evidence that Japan had actually used it, or experimented on live human. This research was available publically.
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/ja...

> Are you suggesting the Nazis were following international law when they did that?

Austria was legally annexed by Germany, and no nation had disputed as key players like UK and France had approved at Munich conference took places a few month later. But Germany invaded Poland without the formal declaration of war as the reason to protect German citizens from riots, so that was very suspicious and maybe illegal. Germany official declared the war against UK two days after attacking Poland, and so WW2 had started.

Joseon Koreans prime-minister and other political leaders had requested Japan to annexed Korea in 1909, and the annexation was recognized by League of Nations. During the Japanese administration, Korean population had doubled from 13 mil to 25 million, Japan had abolished slavery and freed Korea’s slave class called “Baekchon” which was thought to be 65~85% of the total population, giving them names and basic human rights, like freedom of occupations, lives, religions, movement, or marriage.

Japan had also introduced the compulsory education system in the very first time in the Korean history, by building 1 elementary school for every 3 villages/municipal districts, 1 high school for 6 villages/municipal districts. Japan had also built 600 public hospitals and clinics in the first 10 years, built the basic infrastructures like inter-city roads and highways, electricity and phone lines, drinking water and sewage water pipelines in the cities, as well as public transportation that Koreans and Japanese could share to move or to commerce, and introduced the modern banking, agriculture, judicial systems, and leisures like zoo and skate-links. Korea didn’t have none of that before, and in fact, Japan had to supplement the Korean government with 10% of Japan’s National Budget every year.

> US gave freedom and independence to all the territories they took over from Japan after the WW2

The US an european imperialists were forced to give up its territories after the WW2. Japan was fighting for the independence of Asia from the Western imperialists. In a sense, the US was driven to give up territories like Phillipines, but still has Hawaii and Guam.

コメント

Philip  • 6 days ago  


Dennis Halpin, THANK YOU, sir, for writing this. It seems to me because we consider Japan to be our allie now, while China as an adversary, we are shying away from calling out Japan for its revisionist views. However, by doing so we are allowing our national conscience to be compromised while losing the moral leadership of the free world. Asian countries (and the world) will no longer see the U. S. as a steadfast leader, but just a greed merchant who sides with whoever is beneficial at the time. While I greatly respect and admire Douglas MacArthur, in his drive to check the communist and revitalize Japan, he made a grave mistake some 70 years ago by giving a blanket amnesty to Japan's royal family and reducing/minimizing the criminals brought to justice by the IMTFE.

jmjoker > Philip  • 6 days ago  

we've been supporting Japan's lies since the end of the war because of our "national interest" in making Japan an ally first against communism and now against China

scottindallas > Philip  • 6 days ago  


the ignorant author is the revisionist. The US embargo of Japaneses 
oil, an act of war by the way, means the Pearl Harbor attack cannot be 
deemed "unprovoked" Indeed, the Jurists on the Asian equivalent of the 
Nuremberg tribunals found Japan justified in attacking at Pearl Harbor, 
sorry. And, it's notable that none of our carriers or latest ships 
were in Hawaii that day. We fight against Japan was indeed to protect 
Western Colonialism in the Pacific.

mike no > scottindallas  • 6 days ago  

You are not very educated on International Trade, Laws, Treaties or history. I do not want to call you ignorant as you call others. You gotta be Japanese to make the remarks you make, no body with any kind of education would say what you say. First off, the embargo of oil is any nations option. No country can make another country sell them anything. I feel like I am talking to a 8 year old. A act of war for not selling oil or steel to a foreign nation? Are the remarks you make serious?

PoliticallyIncorrect > mike no  • 5 days ago  

You are completely ignorant, believing the lies the ZOG feeds you. Good goy, Mike, I hope you remember this and you're proud to bear the brand of the mark of the beast the day the synagogue of Satan declares the NWO's global supremacy. 

RisingSun > mike no  • a day ago  

Just think who owned those oil fields back then. You can start from there.

mike no > RisingSun  • 17 hours ago  


Which oil fields, the ones in the US were owned by Americans.The US was a exporter of oil in those days. We also exported stell in those days and this was something Japan did not have also. Japan owned neither, just as today.

RisingSun > mike no  • 7 hours ago  


Japan wasn't simply fighting with the US. The US, UK and Netherland (which had oil fields in Indonesia) was adopting bloc economy to cope with the Great Depressions and the trade embargo, like Glass-Steagall Act, was implemented to segregate Japan from doing business with anyone.

Hull Note was issued in 1937, and Roosevelt made the speech to segregate Japan in the same year. The export of Iron and Steel was restricted in July 1940, and oil and oil products in August. The Pearl Harbar wasn't really the begining of the war of Pacific.

PoliticallyIncorrect > scottindallas  • 5 days ago  


The Japanese museum holds the most truthful view of history.
I mean, the evil imperial Japanese occupation was so brutal, 
look what they did to Korea in only 40 years! 
http://www.geocities.jp/dineto...

That's right, they took it from a Sub-sahran Africa tier society, to a modern nation! The fiends! How dare they threaten Western / Zionist global hegemony! That was Japan's crime. Because when Soviet Russia (firmly under Zionist control) invaded China and annexed Outer Manchuria (which it still holds to this very day as part of the Russian Far East), but there was no international outrage or backlash.
Red China and Korea have reason to deflect hatred towards Japan, but what about the Chinese nationalists of Taiwan? Taiwan was actually quite uplifted by Japanese rule, and the Taiwanese today still reminisce fondly on that period. The reality is, "Japanese occupation" wasn't brutal at all, and in fact was the best thing that ever happened to Korea and Taiwan.

It's time for the world to wake up. There was no "surprise attack on Pearl Harbor". The attack was deliberately provoked and eagerly anticipated to swing public opinion in favor of the war against the will of the American public. You see, the American leaders and indeed, all allied leaders, fought not for freedom, but for greed. They held the Zionist globalist international bankers' interests above the best interests, and indeed, above the very lives of their own people, and conspired to further their Zionist overlords' agenda above all else to reap the handsome rewards. That's right the real purpose of WW2 was to legitimize Israel and establish more Zionist central banks throughout the world. Gentile blood to fuel Zionist greed.

I urge everyone to familiarize themselves with this:

   
http://madmonarchist.blogspot....
http://madmonarchist.blogspot....

The fact is, the Zionists continue to manipulate and control the 'leaders' of the world, and we continue to fight more wars almost exclusively on their behalf, simply for installing Zionist central banks and cementing Zionist control worldwide.

Reality Check > PoliticallyIncorrect  • 3 days ago   


"The Japanese museum holds the most truthful view of history." 
That is buIIshit. They are obviously liars. 


"Taiwan was actually quite uplifted by Japanese rule." 
That is B.S. too. When Taiwan was conceded to Japan, Taiwanese rebellion was widespread, 16% of the population was lost in the resistance movements, that is more than twice the percentage of what China suffered as a whole, in WW II.

They did find the faults, crimes committed by the Western Zionists, that was why after WW II, most of the colonies began to gain independence, worldwide, except there were a few left, like Vietnam under France, Hong Kong under the UK.