JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- 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
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
SezWho2
If those are Taliban militants who later portray themselves as innocent civilians when they register protests with officials of the Karzai government, then you have even bigger problems.
Posted in: Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
0
SezWho2
Yes. So what? How does that necessitate a war with Afghanistan?
Again, so what? There was no requirement to have been a resident of Kabul in order to govern Afghanistan. I believe there still is not.
Actually, no it doesn't, although your sarcasm is noted. I believe most of the refugees fled before the Taliban took control although there is no question that many fled the Taliban. There are many reasons for return, including:
a) difficulty in making a living in a foreign country, b) expectation that home will be better than before, c) an international "effort" to return refugees, which in some cases may include being less hospitable as hosts, and d) plain ordinary homesickness.
Basically, however, that refugees returned says very little about whether the Taliban kept fairly good control of the country. It more accurately suggests that a good number of people did not like the way the Taliban kept control. Day by day, they seem to be liking Karzai less as well.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
Nonsense. My point is that the US has greater responsibility.
I suppose that we could go back to the unfair treaty after WW1 and argue that England, France and the US were really responsible for WW2 on account of the unfair treaty. Perhaps we could go even further back. However, the people who initiate hostilities are basically the people who start the wars.
The US started this war as a solution to the bin Laden/al Qaeda problem. It did not solve that problem. But it managed to destroy the defacto government which, although brutal, actually kept fairly good control of the country. We replaced it with a nominally democratic government which does not.
The lack of central government control, the deaths, the renewed opium production, the continued occupation of a sovereign country were all undertaken on US initiative. The US is responsible. The Powell Doctrine says we have to fix what we broke. That's all very well and good unless we cannot.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
Hmmm.... I don't think you get to poison the arguments of others by taking swipes at some fictitious "radical left" and then demand an accounting for who is buying into US propaganda. However, you might look at saruzenki's post for one. And if you are honest you will admit that a several others (if not here then elsewhere) take the immediate position that civilian deaths are a Taliban put-up job.
As far as me being not interested in talking to those who take the immediate position that the US must be guilty of some nefarious and criminal act, I must say that you don't seem to be interested in talking to them either. Being sarcastic, yes. Being a partner in real conversation, no.
I think you'll find that I have often made the point that correlation is not causation. So when you speculate upon the degree of my intelligence you are being condescending. Condescension is not an argument.
Of course the Taliban in Pakistan are not happy about the air strikes. But that is not evidence that their position is being eroded. It is every bit as much evidence of desperation to contain a growing Taliban strength. Furthermore, I believe the issue here is Afghanistan and not Pakistan.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
nandakandamanda,
Everyone is manipulating American public sentiment, even Americans--Presidents even.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
teleprompter,
I'm glad you find this interesting. I'm sorry, however, that you offer neither agreement nor refutation. I'm even sorrier that you resort to the weasel word "claiming". Your comment merits a hearty, "So?"
The armed forces are an organization. Our politicians are not (although the House and Senate are) and neither is the mainstream media (although CNN , the NYT, FOX and the WSJ are). (I didn't know the latter two were shilling for the Democrats, though.) I have no doubt that the armed forces are respected. I think you will find that even those who criticize how they are being used respect them. However, respect and agreement are two different things.
It seems as though you have missed my point. It is not whether we respect the armed forces, it is whether we agree with how they are being used. That the members of the armed forces may agree does not make them less worthy of respect nor does it mean that our respect for them translates to agreement with them.
Posted in: Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
0
SezWho2
OnTheRecord,
It doesn't matter whether Americans target innocents or not. (History suggests, however, that they do so when convenient.) Americans certainly kill them--unless, of course, you subscribe to the philosophical position that there are no innocents.
We started the war against the Taliban. We are responsible for all subsequent events. That we do not intend for civilians to die is not an excuse.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
No. Islamic terrorists using civilian casualties as a weapon of war is not a smokescreen. But that's not the point.
Of course they will use civilian casualties as a propaganda tool. But there is a difference between using civilian casualties as a tool and creating civilian casualties to use as a tool. Of course the Taliban could kill 100 civilians tomorrow and blame the US, but the point is whether they did this here. Simply resorting to the US propaganda position that this is what they must have done is no substitute for finding the truth of the matter--which is what both Karzai and the US say they want.
Yes, by all means, the US has to do its part in minimizing civilian casualties. But I think it would be dangerous to assume that it can do so by somehow perfecting the requirements for air strikes or the use of drones. At some point, an honest assessment must be made as to whether the asymmetric killing of civilians is worth getting a however many Taliban leaders and fighters we have managed to get. At this point, it doesn't really seem to have deterred the Taliban. They seem to have instead strengthened.
Doing more of what hasn't worked so far may produce a good result. But I think it is more often the case that it does not.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
No. But apparently you are compelled to suggest that others are doing so. And that casts doubt on your credentials as a moderate.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone here has really changed their opinion. What I see is that sarcasm doesn't work and that pot-shooting wounds a lot of feet. The war has not become a "good war" simply because it is being conducted by a different President. Nor have that most vociferous war supporters acquiesced to the idea that Bush is a war criminal simply because Obama is doing some of the same things that Bush did.
I think Obama is wrong in persisting with the air strikes. I thought they were wrong before the election and I think so now. But my take on the situation is that Bush was incapable of admitting error and reversing course and Obama is not.
At present, Obama is doing pretty much what he promised he would do. I don't think this will work--primarily because we cannot define a reasonably tenable objective in Afghanistan. Bush (and McCain) promised to plug away no matter what. I think (or at least, I hope) Obama will be far more practical.
Posted in: Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
0
SezWho2
...if you can believe US officials. Of course, despite Rumsfeld's complaint that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are outspending the impoverished US in terms of press coverage, the US has absolutely no interest in achieving propaganda victories of its own?
The radical left? America is so far to the right that the American left is more centrist than leftist. And the center still wants to know what lasting victory we can hope to achieve in Afghanistan.
I think it is possible for the US to achieve some kind of reordering of that part of the world. But hundreds of thousands of people will have to die in order for us to do so. Even then, the results will not be certain.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
teleprompter,
There was an invasion of Afghanistan. There was no liberation. The Taliban was ousted as the de facto government. Karzai was elected President of Kabul. And the warlords took over the rest of the country, except in areas where the Taliban retained their support. The continuing presence of American and now Nato troops there show how little Afghanistan has been liberated.
Wolfpack may represent the majority of the people in our armed forces. But I don't think our armed forces represent the majority of the people in the US--and I believe that this is one of the things that our most recent elections were about. We need our armed forces and we need the men and women who honorably serve their country. We also need a President who will not misuse our armed forces.
Posted in: Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
0
SezWho2
Answer from the Center - No, it does not. Bush's war criminality proceeds from a number of issues: starting the wars in the first place, ignoring the Geneva conventions, utilizing torture and so on.
In continuing this type of warfare, Obama can enter his way into war criminality, but he can only do so by persisting in employing tactics that result in civilian deaths despite his best efforts to eliminate them. Obama was "fixed" in this war and in the Petraeus strategy to "win" it. It was not a political possibility for him to just call it off. He has committed to a stronger presence on the ground in recognition that we are not going to "win" the conflict through air strikes, but as for stopping the air strikes altogether he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Posted in: Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths
0
SezWho2
Then you thought wrong.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
Taliban assassins?
I think the Taliban are mainly looking to gain sympathy and support from the population of Afghanistan. Assassinating people and burying them in the rubble would hardly be a winning strategy for that. The rubble-burials, however, would demonstrate a certain engineering excellence.
Posted in: Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
0
SezWho2
Oh, la!
Those castigating him here are doing so without knowledge and with very little thought. Perhaps we could speculate that this characterizes the American Right.
The comparison is flawed, but not idiotic. Robinson could make his point quietly and more accurately but that would be (and has been) swallowed by the ongoing unequivocal support for Israel. In other words, it would be ignored and dismissed with arguments for Israel's right of self-defense.
When righteous claims are ignored, trouble escalates. The pity is that Robinson needs to make such an in-your-face comparison to get the message across.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate
0
SezWho2
The concentration camp comparison is provocative, but hardly ignorant and definitely not obscene. Nor is it Islamist propaganda. Doctors, scholars and reporters from many non-Islamic countries have visited the area and hold similar opinions. You will also find Jewish Israelis who agree.
This comparison and the implicit criticism of Israel arise from human considerations and not from Islamic indoctrination. Far more ignorant and obscene is the inability to respond to such comparisons without dismissive name-calling.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
Professor Robinsons's website is precisely why the case against him is weak. He is a self-described "scholar activist" and his views are widely known and easily knowable if you happen to find yourself in his class.
The only wrong-doing here would consist of his insisting upon the correctness of his views of the Israeli/Palestinian issue and not allowing for those who can defend other positions. Just because his opinion hurts your ears or the ears of some of his students is not in itself cause for complaint.
I think there is much that is not known about this case, but it looks to me as though the true intimidation is coming from the pro-Israeli camp and not from the professor.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate
0
SezWho2
likeitis,
No, I am not. In fact, vis-a-vis this case, it is quite the opposite.
If the emails are part of the course--as, for example, they are in the courses my brother teaches--there is no difference in using 20 minutes of class time or 20 minutes of reading email. If they are not part of the course but arise out of issues raised by students during the course, then whether students would have to use their time for this particular email depends on their understanding of the course requirements. Only if emails are not part of the course and are offered gratuitously, are students any more free to ignore them than they are to ignore what takes place in class.
I think the problem here is that we do not know the particles of the course, nor do we know its syllabus. We do not know how this issue arose and why the professor involved chose to couch his comparison in the terms that he did. What we do know is that his claim is controversial. He may be able to defend it, but he has to know that it will at least be offensive to some if he claims a genocide of Palestinians on a basis parallel with that of the Nazi implementation of the final solution to their "Jewish problem"--particularly since he is arguing an emerging effect against an established policy.
I am not troubled by the comparison. But I am not Jewish and I think there is something to consider in the comparison. I think it is silly for Jewish groups to demand an apology, for in demanding an apology they only reinforce a notion that Jews will not tolerate criticism of Israel within the borders of the US. No American is harmed by the professor's claims, however much or little merit they have.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate
0
SezWho2
I don't think many teachers give a lesser grade to students who hold different opinions. I think, however, many teachers give a lesser grade to students who cannot defend their opinions.
That should not be surprising, especially if the opinions that they hold are outlandish and indefensible. Neither should it be surprising that such students are the last to recognize the poverty of their arguments.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate
0
SezWho2
likeitis,
Yes, it was an email. Emails from an instructor are, generally speaking, part of the materials of the course. They need to be relevant. Your instructor is your instructor, not your friend--unless of course he is your friend, in which case it rather beggars belief that 80 students in his class happen to be his friends.
I think it is difficult to judge this case without knowing:
a) whether emails were a regular part of the course;
b) whether the subject of this particular email is related to the main matter of the course;
c) if neither a) nor b), how the subject arose--whether this is further to the matter of an issue that a student raised in class, for example, or whether it is a gratuitous and irrelevant opinion offered by the instructor;
and d), the exact content of the email unencumbered by the hostile opinions of those who objected to it.
Posted in: U.S. professor's Holocaust-Gaza comparison stirs debate