Yes, the official (belarussian) transliteration should definitely be accepted. Both are valid, but not accepting that one (but instead just the russian one) is weird.
The State 'kills it's [sic] own citizens' as you call it, is in my opinion completely justified under certain egregious circumstances (such as intentional homicide) and can act as a deterrent for further perpetrations. For instance democracies that currently use capital punishment include Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, which have among the world's lowest crime rates.
This reasoning is deeply flawed. First, countless studies have shown the deterrence claim with regard to the US is a myth. Second, each of those countries has much less poverty than the US does, and their cultures are much less individualistic than the US's: people in those countries are imbued from a young age with a sense of strong commitment to social order (some might call it a learned shame, but regardless). That deters crime. Even nonviolent crime, for which the death penalty is not a factor in those countries, is much lower in these countries than in most places. There are many reasons for the low crime rates in those countries. Crediting it to the death penalty is facile. Finally, it's folly in the first place to point to the use of the death penalty in other places as justification for its use here. It's either immoral or it isn't. The fact that three other democracies are also wrong doesn't excuse the supposed greatest country on earth for its failure on this issue.
jmellor: come on. We've argued about capital punishment on other quizzes I think so I won't rehash that, but, there's no such thing as necessary evil? So... invading Germany to stop the Holocaust and end WW2, that wasn't necessary? Or you believe that massive loss of life caused by this action was somehow less evil than executing irredeemable rapists and murderers? What about the killing of Osama bin Laden? Or testing life-saving therapies on chimps and lab rats? I don't believe that you actually believe this.
Nuking Japan was also necessary.If we did not nuke Japan, there is a chance World War 2 would still be being fought today (More like the Japanese-American War or War in the Pacific.)
Japan was already on the brink of collapse, having lost the battle of Okinawa, the final major battle of WW2 in our timeline, in May of 1945. Japan was devastated by firebombing, and the USA just wanted to put a swift end to the war. A war in the Pacific Theatre after 1945 is highly unrealistic, and without any troops, the Japanese army would easily be defeated by the Allies. Either way, Japan would lose the war, but the atomic bombs were used for a lower death toll for the USA, to finish the war, and to show the USA's superiority.
I was totally looking in the wrong direction for the Chernobyl question... I thought some mold (mould) that affected the potatoes or something.. like potato blight.
Ah, yes, Lukashenko. Promised to get rid of corrupted politicians and pave the way to a democracy! Now refusing to leave his throne and throwing everyone in jail who dares to oppose him, classic.
Some may think this ridiculous, but why doesn't the clue to #6 use the word "war" instead of conflict. It was much more than a simple conflict. An estimated 75+ million people died.
Didn't she win the election but corruption got the best of Belarus and Lukashenko claimed he won with 80% of the votes.She opposed and ran to Lithuania to avoid jail time or possible execution,correct?
I am not sure about White Russia being the "outdated" name of Belarus. Literal translation of word Belarus is white Russia, so maybe you should form the question differently?
Naming conventions don't necessarily rely on translations. Some countries still translate Беларусь (it was called "Weißrussland" in Germany until very recently) but in English that form is apparently outdated = largely out of use.