As defined by the channels owner.

"Welcome to the sunny home for all things Aussie, NZ and Pacific..."

http://videosift.com/downunder

Northern Pacific Decapoda technique, an excellent defense against anemone.

I'm a fan of learning about the Pacific battles in World War 2.

Seriously, WW2: Pacific, Get your shit together..... WW2: Europe is kicking your ass.

There's gotta be more to this story. *Found it*

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/10/oregon_state_police_video_capt.html

*related=http://videosift.com/video/World-War-II-in-the-Pacific-Day-by-day-change

The specified related post, World War II in the Pacific: Day by day change, is already associated with this post - bypassing related request by pumkinandstorm.

World War II in the Pacific: Day by day change has been added as a related post - related requested by pumkinandstorm on that post.

I'm just glad Pacific Rim wasn't listed.

This is really crap.

This imperialist fuck's argument amounts to this:

1) The US will need to defeat Japan through military means
2) The US wants to avoid "another Okinawa" (with a quote from Truman)
3) The US needed to drop the atomic bomb

So, lets look first at that Okinawa analogy. Okinawa, as with other pacific islands, were particularly brutal because of both their strategic importance to the Pacific front as well as their terrain. Both because of they needed to be seized in order to cutoff mainland Japan (and isolate it) and their small, heavily dense terrain caused warfare to be at times hand-to-hand, the battles here were desperate and ugly.

This leads us to the next point: the whole presupposition with the imperialist fuck's argument is that there was no other way but occupation, in the form of Okinawa, to end Japan's empire.

This is false. The US had other options to end the war. Occupation of Japan wasn't a strategic necessity in the way occupation of the pacific islands was. The US could have maintained a bombing campaign while getting the rest of the world to pursue political/diplomatic talks with Japan.

The reason the US dropped the bombs wasn't to end the war (which was already war, de jure shit aside). It was to a) ensure supremacy over Japan (which isn't the same thing as ending a war) and b) to ensure global imperialist hegemony.

Amerikkka doesnt give a shit about saving lives. What about all the people firebombed in Dresden? What about all the imperialist adventures before and after WWII? Don't give me some ethical crap about a country, at least 1/4 of which was still under apartheid conditions, that wants to save lives because it respects human life so it drops atomic bombs on an already defeated people.

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'How to, TED, Plastic, Oceans' to 'How to, TED, Plastic, Oceans, Great Pacific garbage patch, ocean current, cleaning' - edited by Eklek

The CP 2816 Empress steam locomotive, roving ambassador for Canadian Pacific Railways. I happened upon this train in Maple Ridge last December and didn't have my f**king camera with me. Not even my cell phone.

Pacific Rim 2 viral?

He was TOTALLY saved by the mud splash. Moved his car exactly the distance required to miss the rock.

Pharmac (go look it up) here in NZ has a big part to play in our overall lower health costs for medicines.

It's a crown owned entity that works out what drug is the best for a particular purpose and then says, "hey big pharma wanna have all the NZ'ers get cured of shitty disease x with your magic pill number 4? Well then gives us the generic brand and here's what we will pay." And then drives a sweet deal for all us kiwis.

It's that big of a thing that it's upset all the corporate fuckers that are driving the whole Trans Pacific fuck the little guy Partnership.

Then there is the ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) - It's not perfect by any means. But say for example you are playing football on the weekend and your blow your hamstring, well you rock on up to the local A&E, afterhours or medical centre etc, pay a fee of around $30-50nz, get checked over, if you need xrays/scans these maybe fully subsidised or again you may have to pay up to $50-80, get cheapo drugs from the pharmacy (thanks Pharmac) and go home and put your feet up. You're in the system now buddy!

Now have to put your foot up at home for the next 4 weeks, - what about work? I gotta get paid dog!! Don't worry homie ACC has got your back.

If your claim is approved (they pay first and ask questions later, after all you need to get better) you'll be paid 80% of your income while your at home working on your TV tan! ACC was created for workplace injuries, but falling of the ladder home still gets covered.

ACC works by all employers paying into the scheme via levies based on your wage/salary, also the higher risk of injury the workplace is the higher the levy the employer has to pay.

The pay off for ACC is that no-one is allowed to be sued. The govt will drop the hammer on the company, you get looked after by ACC. This has caused the odd issue here and there but overall. Sweet!

Disclaimer - This may all be a complete bunch of ass, but it's pretty close to the way it is.

More of a misunderstanding then, it could have been worded better but I suspect you were in rant mode at the time, and there's plenty to rant about there.
I do agree that historical accuracy is always preferable to fabrication, as long as it serves the story and fits with the theme of the film, the presence of dragons would not have served the movie Lincoln in any way, and therefore, do not belong. The very title of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter however pretty much tells us all we need to know about this film and it's treatment of history. So to me I guess, complaining about the historical accuracy of a film like 300 or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire hunter is a bit like going to a French film festival and then complaining that all the movies are in French.
I like history and learning more about history and having more historically accurate films would never be a bad thing in my book, but they do tend to be a harder sell.
Also there should be no shame in going to see Pacific Rim, write it off as a guilty pleasure if it helps.(sorta like coke and whores on my taxes