JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
0
CavemanLawyer
If we employ that definition, I suppose any nation with resistance in its borders is unstable. I am pondering Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas right now. I am sure there are yet people resisting the United States government. Never realized we were so unstable...
My definition of stability has a lot more to do with being assured that the status quo is not going take a major turn anytime soon. Everybody knew Saddam was the dictator. The Kurds in the north resisted him, even kept him out of the north (such is my understanding). But I never worried that the status quo was going to change, or that a power vacuum would be created until GWB decided to invade. I also was not worried that Iran was going to attack Iraq or any body else, again, not until GWB attacked.
The situation was, relatively, stable. It was even more stable than the situation on the Korean peninsula. We pretty much knew what was going to happen.
Stability is not a simple "on or off" deal. There are shades of grey. Yes, Iraq certainly could have been more stable, but it was stable enough for me. I am no fan of Saddam, but he was better than the clear instability that followed him.
Another test is that I actually was not much worried about Iraq until Congress passed that stupid vote to give GWB all that authority. Iraq was under control, and basically stable. And WMD rumors were obviously just that: unfounded rumor.
I am just glad the whole ME did not unravel. It seemed a real possibility. But the world continues to turn, and I see Iran greatly pressed and now wedged between two countries occupied by the U.S. Its not over yet, nor will it ever be. --Cirroc
Posted in: Turkish jets hit Kurdish rebels in Iraq
0
CavemanLawyer
Bad enough that you have so many double standards. Now you are just plain lying. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
I am more inclined to believe Obama merely saw those people as ladders to climb, as politicians tend to view us all. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
I did some research. The Shahab 3 can carry a warhead of about one ton, but does not seem to be designed for a single warhead of that size. But lets assume it can anyway.
That means that Iran will have to make a nuclear warhead of one ton. That would be quite a feat for a nation's first nuke!
No, before they get anywhere that stage, they will have to do some explosion tests. There is no way they are going to successfully miniaturize a nuclear warhead until they at least get that out of the way. As soon as Iran does that test, they will be toast. They will not have a day to get to the miniaturization process.
Stalling them on this is fine as long as we play fair and remain mindful of Iran's security situation. If American's were in Iran's shoes, they would clawing their eyes out with worry. --Cirroc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclearweaponsdelivery
Posted in: France warns of Israeli strike on Iran nuclear sites
0
CavemanLawyer
I do not believe the country's very first nuke is going to fit on that particular missle. Maybe one our refined warheads, but not theirs.
I am sorry, I thought Syria was Saddam's bossom buddy and inherited all of his WMD. But that would be suggesting you believe something you may not.
So, okay. I want to know if they are going to roll that nuke through Iraq or through Turkey? Or perhaps put it on a ship to go around Africa, through the straits of Gibraltar and across the Mediterranian to Syria's shore? --Cirroc
Posted in: France warns of Israeli strike on Iran nuclear sites
0
CavemanLawyer
Oh dear! Do I need to bring up Iran-Contra? Bay of Pigs invasion and the bombing of a department store, of all things, prior to invasion? The planning and money for that came from the Eisenhower admin though carried out under Kennedy.
But somebody says there actually is no war on terror. Imagine that! It sure would explain a lot of things, from not caring about where bin Laden is to invading Iraq:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7859
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
That would go for both of us.
Okay. Who are they, how did they die, and were they targeted? I suspect you are talking about the three that died when the bomb they were making exploded.
At first I thought you were throwing the Brinks robbery at me. Two cops and a Brinks guard were killed. But guess what? Ayers was not involved. Darn.
It proves their target was property and not human life, at least until they teamed up with the Panthers for the Brink's robbery.
As a statement, its a winner. Does it compare to the rhetoric and lies that led the to Iraq invasion? Its death toll? Same comparison with Vietnam.
I will not deny the people went overboard and went pretty nutty. But I wonder how any of us would have held up in those times. I never even received a draft card in my life. Never even worried about getting one. But if I had, it is quite likely I would have taken some shots at people, and they would not have been Iraqis!
Nowhere did you prove intent to kill. Looks like intent to scare to me, particularly since no one died. Was there a phone call before that one? --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
Total agreement with Spidey. Good samaritans are not rewarded in Japan. The dead guy could have left a suicide note and the driver would still go to jail. Of course people run!
The average Joe will stick around for justice. Only a dummy sticks around for guaranteed injustice. --Cirroc
Posted in: Man found dead on street after suspected hit-and-run
0
CavemanLawyer
goodDonkey, you are correct in what you say. But please don't feed the straaawmaaannnn! --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
Well said adaydream.
I say make a deal with the Kurds and give them a nation. Obviously, they will not stop until they get it, no more than the American Founding Fathers were going to stop despite all the hardship they faced during the American Revolutionary War. How many times must this scene play out? When will we stop supporting people like the Turks who just hang on to people that do not want to be a part with them, while hanging on the land that belongs to those people? --Cirroc
Posted in: Turkish jets hit Kurdish rebels in Iraq
0
CavemanLawyer
Israel has said it themselves in the past, and quite clearly. Whereyabeen? --Cirroc
Posted in: France warns of Israeli strike on Iran nuclear sites
0
CavemanLawyer
Poppycock. If Iran ever makes a bomb, they will not be able to deliver it to Israel. But that will not stop Israel from nailing Iran, probably with those nukes we all know Israel possesses, that very second.
Iran does not even border Israel for Pete's sake. I think you just get off on war. Why not play a video game, and get it out. --Cirroc
Posted in: France warns of Israeli strike on Iran nuclear sites
0
CavemanLawyer
Wow! Some of you out there really harp on the word "fatal". One cop died. And I will tell you a secret: another cop was very seriously wounded in that same blast and partially blinded. Those cops may have been good guys. I honestly don't know.
But what I do know is that the death and injury toll of the Weathermen was small and that they did not intend for anyone to die. They never targeted a single human life. Contrast that with the four people killed in Ohio protesting the war, or the black man shot to death by cops while trying to protect his mother from the vicious beatings of peaceful MLK followers by the cops. Or even compare it to all the servicemen we lost in Vietnam for nothing. Or the children who died from our bombs, or suffered birth defects from our poisons.
If one death has got any of you this dead set against one man who we are not even sure was directly involved, then your head should have literally exploded in rage with the examples I have presented you. RIP gentle reader. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
Legally, no. But I object to disrespect of the flag actually. The flag of the United States of America does not represent the government alone. If it did, I would say burn away. The flag represents EVERYTHING about the United States. Anyone who goes so far as to burn it really ought to renounce their citizenship, or heck, set themselves on fire.
But, I believe those Americans who do this is just completely confused as to what the flag represents, and their little protest of this nature only reveals their ignorance. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
STRAAAAAMAAAAANNNNNNN! --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
Yes, it is politics. And I could sling mud at God himself. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
One good pic deserves another
http://koft.net/laser/bushsteps.JPG
Yep, that is our President, trodding the flag. Significant differences: 1. One at least knows he is doing it, the other does not. 2. One is not now nor ever was a presidential candidate of a major party. 3. Which is worse? Standing on a piece of cloth that symbolically represents the country, or symbolically standing on the actual country? I would argue the latter is worse, and as the Republicans have been doing it for 8 years, I am slightly pleased a Democrat will be in the White House soon.
What would please me far greater is if America could have more political parties with half a chance at the Congress and White House. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
I may have gotten carried away above, but I found the weighted question to be quite out of order. Even so, I may have take coulrophobic to task a little too much. --Cirroc
Posted in: U.S. drops plan to put diplomats in Iran
0
CavemanLawyer
Tell us all FandB that you are not condoning police brutality of the 1960's, the drafting of teens who never voted into an unpopular war, segregation of blacks from the general populace, and violent government crackdowns on the people's right to protest.
I understand if you oppose the means Ayers used in his youth. But certainly not his goals. I do not like his means either, but it seems to me the violence did not start with Ayers.
Tell me, do you always favor a pacifist approach to the violence of others? Your stance indicates that you do. --Cirroc
Posted in: Palin defends terrorist comment against Obama
0
CavemanLawyer
Rabid? That is an interesting word. It implies that anyone is liable to be attacked. Yet, I cannot remember a single country that the country of Iran ever attacked! Ever! And lo and behold! Not one but TWO of Iran's neighbors have been attacked by the United States, one wholly without merit! And you call Iran rabid?
Israel the only democracy in the M.E.? And Iran threatens to destroy it? And you are calling Iran apocalyptic? Democracy is great, but it is not the end all be all. Neither is the opposite of democracy evil. Where would you place Egypt? And why so much bile for Iran and none for the U.S. The U.S. did not threaten to destroy a democracy. The U.S. did it! They actually did it! For the love of Pete! What do I have to do to get even a remote sense of consistency around here?
Officially denies the Holocaust? Is that some kind of terrible, terrible crime? Give us a break okay? Denial of the Holocaust is completely ignorant. That is the worst I can say. Its not on the level of even bombing Hiroshima. Could we focus on real problems here?
Repeatedly calls for destruction of Israel? I am going to ask you for quotes, because I am wondering if you will be so obtuse as to mention the only one that I know, which is the gross mistranslation of "wipe off the map". If you do bother to mention that one, you only prove, as if we needed more proof, that critical thinking and is just not your game and how you never bother to scratch the surface.
Criticism of the regime? I don't like the oppressive regime in control of Iran. I believe many of the people of Iran don't like it either. I would much prefer a democracy there (one like the U.S. destroyed). But as long as they stay in their borders and don't make a nuclear bomb, I can't say I am going to be as apocalyptic toward them as the U.S. government or Israel. And if you understand the meaning of apocalyptic, you know exactly what I am talking about. Iran is not the only country guilty, and probably not even the most guilty.
Now, let us talk about worry. Above you find many reasons for Iran to worry, including finding itself suddenly surrounded by a belligerent enemy called the United States. Israel threatens to bomb Iran time and again. Nobody has any proof that Iran wants a nuclear bomb, even though it would be understandable if they did, given their nuclear neighbors and all those reasons to worry. But Iran has never so much as said they want nuclear bombs. They want nuclear generated power. So does everybody.
After all this, if you cannot see that Iran has more to fear from the world than the world from Iran, you are truly, truly blind, and your mind is zombified.
--Cirroc
Posted in: U.S. drops plan to put diplomats in Iran