Input: (CNN) -- Japan's prime minister conceded defeat in parliamentary elections Sunday, signaling the return to power of the Liberal Democratic Party and ending the brief rule of the disappointing upstart Democratic Party of Japan. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda pledged to step down as party president after exit polls showed a smashing loss in lower house voting. The party, once seen as a breath of fresh air in Japanese politics, came to be regarded as increasingly ineffective. "We got a regrettable result," Noda said. "The result is everything in the politics. The biggest responsibility lies on me. I will quit as the partly leader of DPJ." The move clears the way for the return to power of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the current leader of the conservative-leaning Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP. "The Japanese people will be keenly looking whether the LDP can meet with their expectations," Abe said in interviews after the polling. The LDP ruled the country almost continuously since its establishment in 1955 until it was forced from power three years ago by the DPJ. Public broadcaster NHK said the LDP and its coalition partner, the new Komei party, gained at least 302 seats in the 480-seat lower house. CNN's main affiliate, TV Asahi, reports the LDP/Komei coalition gained at least 312 seats. The official count is expected to be released Monday. The LDP is inheriting a struggling economy, regional tensions and questions over Japan's role in Asia. "The economy is at the bottom. It's our first mission to turn it around," Abe said.
"As the current prime minister quits as the party leader who can return to power?" is "Komei"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no
Input: In his 1847 Report on Algeria, Tocqueville declared that Europe should avoid making the same mistake they made with the European colonization of the Americas in order to avoid the bloody consequences. More particularly he reminds his countrymen of a solemn caution whereby he warns them that if the methods used towards the Algerian people remain unchanged, colonization will end in a blood bath. Tocqueville includes in his report on Algeria that the fate of their soldiers and finances depended on how the French government treats the various native populations of Algeria, including the various Arab tribes, independent Kabyles living in the Atlas Mountains, and the powerful political leader Abd-el-Kader. In his various letters and essays on Algeria, Tocqueville discusses contrasting strategies by which a European country can approach imperialism. In particular, the author differentiates between what he terms 'dominance' and a particular version of 'colonization'. The latter stresses the obtainment and protection of land and passageways that promise commercial wealth. In the case of Algeria, the Port of Algiers, and the control over the Strait of Gibraltar, were considered by Tocqueville to be particular valuable. Direct control of the political operations of the entirety of Algeria, however, was not. Thus the author stresses domination over only certain points of political influence as a means to colonization of commercially valuable areas. Tocqueville argued that domination via violent means, though unpleasant, is necessary for colonization and justified by the laws of war. Such laws are not discussed in detail; however, given that the goal of the French mission in Algeria was to obtain commercial and military interest as opposed to self-defense, it can be deduced that Tocqueville would not concur with Just war theory's jus ad bellum criteria of just cause. Further, given that Tocqueville approved of the use of force to eliminate civilian housing in enemy territory, his approach does not accord with Just War Theory's jus in bellow criteria of proportionality and discrimination.
"Was Tocqueville interested in control over all of Algeria? If not, what parts did he want to control?" is "No. The Strait of Gibraltar and the Port of Algiers"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes
Input: Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website.
"Who continued selling opium in spite of the deal?" is "Robert Scheer"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output:
no