backscratcher comments

Posted in: Trump's immigration order faces mounting legal questions See in context

The sounds false. The ban targets citizens from Muslim-majority countries, but it doesn't target only Muslims from those countries.

I have no idea why you would be thumbed down by even one person for asking a question. I see so much paranoia on both sides of this argument that merely questioning something is seen as being the enemy. Yes, it was only one thumb down (for now) but I think the US and people on both sides should take a breath and respect each other's rights to speak.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: 6 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at Quebec City mosque See in context

Trudeau said in a statement that “we condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge.”

An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. This was an attack on all of us.

“I don’t understand why here—it’s a small mosque,” said a man who was inside the center at the time of the attack. “It’s not Montreal or Toronto.”

It is wrong no matter where it is.

No senseless acts of violence or murder have any place in any civilized community. Let us start to stand together as one community. The world has to move to act as one people with respect for all who want to live peacefully.

I hope that they will continue to denounce this type of behavior if it comes out that those who did it were extremist Muslims.

Why wouldn't they? When has anyone not done so when such an event has happened?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump's immigration order causes chaos at airports, outrage at protests See in context

It is good to see the courts in the US reviewing Trump's executive orders. It does give me some piece of mind that debate is still alive in the US and that Trump clearly cannot just do whatever he wants to do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump's immigration order causes chaos at airports, outrage at protests See in context

No, it would mean that the votes of less populated areas (smaller-population states, to be more accurate) would no longer carry more weight than those of highly populated areas (actually larger-population states).

Is that accurate? Do the votes smaller-population states actually carry more weight than those of larger population states?

No, there would no longer be any incentive to campaign in one state rather than another, as any location would be equally attractive a place to campaign.

I am not sure I understand why this would be true. If state A has an estimated population of 39,250,017 and state B has an estimated population of 585,501, I cannot see any incentive to visit state B. Why wouldn't it be simply be a throwaway? Why wouldn't it simply be ignored?

If you want to defend the current system,

I don't. I have no invested interested in the system. I am just bringing up questions.

you have to at least understand it first.

Yes, that is why I am bringing up questions.

But there is no logic for the electoral college having the bias that is does.

It seems there was a logic to having it, but that it may no longer be doing the job it was intended to do.

The current system doesn't do what you think it does.

I am not sure what you think I thinik. However, I am obviously not clear on what the electoral system does. Americans themselves are so unclear on it that they are having and have been having a very heated debate about it. It seems to me that you have educated yourself about the system a lot. What, may I ask, is your solution?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump's immigration order causes chaos at airports, outrage at protests See in context

Seems to me a basic principle of democracy is that the person with the most votes wins.

Yes, I agree. It seems to me that another basic principle of democracy is that each person's vote carries equal weight. It further seems to me that US abandoning its electoral college would mean that the votes of highly populated areas would carry more weight than those of less populated areas. Why would any presidential candidate ever travel outside the main urban cities? They could basically avoid and ignore the less populated great swathes of the country in favor of the heavily populated areas.

Votes in the United Nations for example do not use the one man, one votes system either. Each country get one vote, no matter how large the population is. One could argue that this does not represent the 'popular vote'. However, representing the popular vote in the UN would mean less populated countries would get fewer chances to influence anything.

I don't know what the solution is, but it does seem to me that the question is more complicated than a one citizen one vote action would fix. I do know that merely the fact that the US seems to have elected a man who is very talented at sticking his foot in his mouth should not detract from the reasons for why the system was set up as it was.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Israel pushes ahead on settlements See in context

They're not the Little House on the Prairie.

Actually, yes they are. In both cases, land was being taken from people that were originally there. How do you think all those colonies got from the east coast to the west coast?

“We are building — and we will continue to build,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in a Facebook post.

Netanyahu is bad for Israel, the Palestinians and the world.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: 9-year-old girl beaten by man on way home from school in Yokosuka See in context

This is why I wouldn;t bring up my child in Japan - too many child predators whether it violence or sexual.

This comment makes me wonder where this crimeless paradise that you are from is.

Personally, one of my favorite parts of school was the walk to and from it.

As to this creep who picked on an innocent child, I hope he is caught quckly and that the harm he did to this child is neither physically nor psychologically permanent.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Posted in: SDF mobilized to dig out snow-stranded vehicles in Tottori See in context

Maybe the US military in Okinawa could take a leaf out of the SDF's book and do something beneficial for the society too.

The US military has provided much needed assistance in disaster areas such as the earthquake striken Tohoku region and more recently last year in the earthquake striken areas of Kumamoto. I see that as not only beneficial for our society for also something for which we are very grateful. The same goes for the SDF and work such as described in this article.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Man punches Don Quijote employee after being asked not to bring his dog into store See in context

for which there'll be damn all sanction.

According to the first sentence in the article, the coward was arrested for this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.N. takes aim at calls for Israeli annexation of West Bank See in context

Mladenov called on “all stakeholders” to avoid any unilateral action that would “prejudge a negotiated final status solution.”

This is spot on. In addition, it is high time that the Palestinians and Israelis were seriously threatened and forced to sit together and stay together unti they negotiate a solution. I think it is safe to say that most of the world is quite sick of seeing, reading, hearing about and paying for this conflict. I know I am.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you regard the U.S. Constitution as a model for the free world? See in context

In addition, the US Constitution still has this clause.

Article I Section 2-3 as amended by Article XIV

2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

In happening to look at the 'recent comments' section here on JT, I came across your comment. I found it interesting that such a phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" is in the US Constitution. Curious, I tried to do some internet research and found that the term “Indians not taxed” was defined to mean that “tribal” Indians are not taxable as long as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe in any degree and hold tribal allegiance in any degree. It is also interesting that the term 'Indian' still remains intact in the Constitution. I would think that would be a good place for an ammendment.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

First, I want to acknowledge that I said my previous post would be my last to you. I've found the time to make this response, though. Let's continue:

You used the words 'as I said', which I mirrored. If I beat that horse, so did you. You repeated something you said, and so did I.

Yes, but you did not respond to the fact that I was agreeing with you until about twenty hours later. Why not? I asked before and I am asking again. What is wrong with attempting to find common ground? Why only focus on conflict?

Well that's a matter of opinion. I disagree.

That is your right and your opinion. Fair enough.

Smaller conflicts 'quite similar to what happened in Iraq'. I disagree that it was quite similar to what happened in Iraq. The scale of difference is huge.

I was referring to the result of countries being practically destroyed and large numbers of people being killed. I think the US under Obama continued the same mistakes as the previous administration, just on a smaller scale. If, for example, there were no Bush administration and Obama took over from Clinton, I think most of the world would look on Obama's eight years much differently than they do now. That could also be compared a punch in the Middle East compared to dynamite in the Middle East as well, right? Well, how about the fact that I, as well as many others around the world, had an expectation of a more peaceful situation when Obama came in, especially considering his 2002 speech against "war in all circumstances'. I, and most if not all of his supporters, had an expectation that he would continue on the path against all wars. Yet, Obama's administration got the US involved in wars Middle East that we were not involved in. In addition, it is not as if the second Iraq War was the US's first big military failure. Look at the Vietnam War, as well. So, no, I do not think any lessons have been learned by the US, yet. Except maybe lessons of convenience.

I like Obama and I supported him, but no, he does not get a pass from me on this, even a little bit. If he were true to his speech in 2002 against the war in Iraq and if he and the US had truly learned a lesson, he would not have involved the US in new wars in Libya and Syria.

And since there was not a war, and only some aerial bombing, I'd say I'm more accurate in saying that they have learned a lesson, by not launching a full-on war in Libya.

See my response above. Looking at US history and looking at how Clinton handled things, I would say Obama continued the US’s war path, just on a smaller scale. No countries were destroyed during Clinton’s time. That is not true of Obama’s time. If you think an example of the US and Obama, who in 2002 said he was against ‘all wars’, learning a lesson is being less destructive than the Bush administration, you are setting your sights sadly very low. Certainly they are much lower than Obama’s own sights in 2002.

By the definition you provided from the dictionary, he agreed without certainty.

Why are you rewording what was in the definition? I wrote it. I don’t need a rewording. He was leaning toward for the war more than against it with uncertainty. Look at what the man has said so far? Has he said anything that he has not changed his mind about, even when he says it with certainty? Sorry I don’t put much weight into what he says anyway, never mind if it is just an ‘I guess so.” It holds so little weight, especially because of who said it.

If you want to add caveats on to that, go ahead. I'll choose my own way to post thank you

As you are free to do. However, the fact remains it was a very wishy washy statement from a man that flip flops more than his hair does.

You kept posting my response as if it were to your comment about "If that is what you are trying to say, I would agree with that...". It wasn't.

Ah, I see the problem. I just now realize that the full paragraph did not remain when I cut and pasted into the quote area. Possibly, this is because of my touch pad. The same thing has happened in a couple of posts, such as the one up above somewhere where it now starts out with my suddenly saying ‘I 100% agree.’ When what pasted above it disappeared. That is on me and I take responsibility for those errors.

However, having said that, the fact remains that in your previous response you chose only to respond to that one part and it took you twenty hours to realize that I had agreed with you. That part is not on me. Had you responded to that, and also typed what you did, I would not have pursued that topic anymore. Again, why did you choose not to acknowledge the main area of agreement between us earlier. Why did it take me several times pointing it out to you before you finally acknowledged it twenty hours later?

And he agreed the the comment, supporting the war, which is what I said all along.

Yes, but it was a wishy washy agreement from a man that can’t seem to manage to keep the same opinion or policy for more than five minutes. I refuse to give it more weight than that. Which is what I said all along.

Finally,

You are trying to claim his words mean something other than what they mean. In other words, you're wishing they had a different meaning.

No, the word ‘wish’ indicates a desire. It was not my desire. It was my opinion. I don’t have a particular hope or desire for what Trump said in 2002. I had and have an opinion, based on the words and the man who said them and has said much less wishy washy words and turned around said the complete opposite later. Your claiming I was ‘wishing’ he said something else claims an emotional desire on my part that was not and is not there. Your choice of words to describe my opinion/analysis were faulty. That is why I wanted an apology, Words like ‘wish’ and ‘I guess so’ have meaning and can and do change the way we think about what was said or what we should think about what was said.

Bottom line, we agree that the US should not be involved in any conflicts. I hope that this comes true and it is also true of the other superpowers in the world. To me, that is the most important thing to take away from our conversation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

But then you went on to say I was beating a dead horse. If I was, then you beat it first.

Yes and no. Again, I made the same comment before, but it was surrounded by comments showing I agreed with you. You were the one that chose to ignore them and merely beat it again.

As a comparison to what happened in Iraq, the analogy was accurate.

No, an accurate analogy would be using one stick of dynamite that killed some people to many sticks of dynamite that killed more. Your analogy ignores the deaths in all the conflicts. In fact, there was no reason for the analogy because I had already stated Libya and Syria were smaller conflicts. Again, you were beating a dead horse.

Which is where we disagree. I believe that they did learn a lesson.

We disagree. Since thousands have died and are continuing to die, I'd say I am more accurate in saying the US has not learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan and is still interfering and intervening and the result continues to be more deaths and more terrorism.

Great, I'm glad to know you finally agree with me that Trump was for the war.

It would have been greater if you had noticed it twenty hours ago.

He was more for it than against it. According to the Cambridge Dictionary the definition of "I guess so" is:

I guess so/not ​ used when you agree or disagree but are not completely certain about something

I guess ​ used when you think something is probably true:

He said it once and, as far as we know, never commented about it again. It is inaccurate to just say, 'He was for the war." It would have been more accurate to say that he once suggested that he probably agreed by saying 'I guess so.' because that is exactly what he did.

No, you skipped posts in the middle. You kept posting a response I made as if it were made to your post two posts earlier.

No. Your 12:58 pm post is directly below my 12:34pm post. It is right up there now. Why would you attempt to say otherwise?

This is my last response to you as it takes you too long to notice what I write and I can't be bothered to continue to explain what should be plain in black and white in front of you.

Bottom line:

When Trump was asked once in 2002 if he thought the US should go into Iraq, he answered 'I guess so., which according to the Cambridge Dictionary (and others, and common sense) means he was agreeing with the comment with clear uncertainty. Which is what I said all along.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

If no lesson was learned, they would have had ground troops in Libya, and had a full-out war.

Not necessarily. Perhaps it better suited the US purposes not to send in ground troops. The US still is responsible for basically destroying another country and creating another nest for terrorism to flourish. I don't see a lesson learned. I still see a self-serving policy.

You're doing it again. The reply you are showing was not made to the comment you're showing. Go back and look at my post from Jan. 12, 2017 - 12:58PM JST, and you'll see that you've repeatedly misrepresented my comment by showing it in reply to a different comment than the one you keep showing.

No, what I wrote is what I meant. If you would kindly write exactly what you think I misquoted I will respond. However, what I wrote is the exact order. In fact, I will:

Jan. 12, 2017 - 12:34PM JST

I wrote:

It is definitely clear that he was more for than against the second Iraq War. However, as I said before, 'I guess so.' is hardly a ringing endorsement and hardly a hardcore position. It is hardly a warmonger position. It is a reason why he cannot claim he was against the second Iraq War, however. If that is what you are trying to say, I would agree with that.

In your next response to me on JAN 12, 201712:58PM JST You quoted only one part of my 12:34pm paragraph ignoring the bold parts in the 12:34pm post that showed my agreement with you:

However, as I said before, 'I guess so.' is hardly a ringing endorsement and hardly a hardcore position. It is hardly a warmonger position.

Then you again wrote:

And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement.

No misquote, no mix-up or misrepresentation on my part. You should now admit this to be true and move on.

but you did compare them as being 'similar'.

I also said Libya and Syria were smaller. You ignored this and then proceeded to attempt to compare thousands killed and hundreds of thousands displaced to a punch. It was a very poor attempt, especially when I had originally stated that Libya and Syria were smaller conflicts than Iraq. I did not need you to explain it to me.

I guess this is the difference between 'learned their/its lesson' and 'learned a lesson'. You are referring to the former, I am referring to the latter, which is why I said 'I'd argue that a lesson was learned'.

Either way is fine with regards to my opinion. The US did not learn its lesson or even learn a lesson. I feel that the suggesting the horrible mess that is Syria and Libya is somehow a sign of the US learning its lesson is akin to suggesting a person who is responsible for a hundred peoples' deaths somehow learned their lesson because the next time they were only responsible for one death and I disagree with this suggestion. If the US had learned its lesson, it would have stayed out of it completely. Instead, the US continued to intervene for the last eight years with the resulting deaths squarely its responsibility. It seems to be your opinion that merely because the US chose not to fight a ground war that it is a sign of the US learning a lesson. I think it is equally possible and indeed more likely that it did not serve the US's purposes to engage in a ground war. It still has been engaging in wars though and people are continuing to die because of it. I don't see the silver lining of any lessons learned. I merely see the US continuing to be self-serving with regards to the Middle East.

You then said I was beating a dead horse for doing so, at which point I pointed out how it was only in response to you beating that same dead horse. You seem to be having a double standard here, trying to give me a hard time when I literally mirrored the words you used.

Yes and no. Yes, I used the same words, but they were surrounded by other words that agreed with you. Your response was merely to repeat your previous words with no regard for the fact that I was actually agreeing with you.

No it's not. You've repeatedly posted my comment as a response to the wrong comment. And you can't even be bothered to go back and look to realize where you were wrong.

As you can see above with the time stamped quotes, you are mistaken. I was commenting about your response that was directly before it, which was in turn responding to my post directly before it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: China changes start date of war with Japan to bolster patriotic education See in context

What is your definition of a colony?

Cambridge Dictionary's definition is "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

I agree 100%. That is what I have been saying.

I've been harping on the US for years about killing of civilians and innocents in the middle east, and saying that they should stop their meddling there altogether.

This is exactly what I have been saying in this thread, yet you seemed to be disagreeing with it. All I said was that the US had not learned its lesson because it was still intervening and that that intervention was killing people. You seemed to find fault with my saying this. Why did you? It was clear I was not comparing Bush and Obama's wars as equals by my very wording.

You on the other hand said:

Not quite. I wrote:

It is definitely clear that he was more for than against the second Iraq War. However, as I said before, 'I guess so.' is hardly a ringing endorsement and hardly a hardcore position. It is hardly a warmonger position. It is a reason why he cannot claim he was against the second Iraq War, however. If that is what you are trying to say, I would agree with that.

To which you wrote:

And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement. When I wrote, "Quite similar to what happened in Iraq even if the scale might have been smaller,." I think it was clear I was not and am not comparing them as equals by the very fact that I wrote 'even if the scale might have been smaller". I feel that the suggesting the horrible mess that is Syria and Libya is somehow a sign of the US learning its lesson is akin to suggesting a person who is responsible for a hundred peoples' deaths somehow learned their lesson because the next time they were only responsible for one death and I disagree with this suggestion. If the US had learned its lesson, it would have stayed out of it completely.

I don't even think they should have gone in there at all however.

We agree 100%. That is what I have been saying.

I've been clear from the start that I don't even think the US should be in the middle east at all.

I had already written above that it was definitely clear that he was more for the war than against it. I also wrote that he couldn't claim to have been against it. It is pretty clear that you did not need to again write, "And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement." You were picking out one part and ignoring the bigger more important part of what I wrote. Why? I was agreeing with you. You made not comment about it beyond, "And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement."

Not at all. 'I guess so' is an agreement to go.

Actually, one of the meanings of 'I guess so' is maybe, probably. The way he said sure sounded like that. 4

Which is a foolish stance. The US has no business in the Middle East. It hasn't done anything good for anyone other than those who get rich off war.

I agree 100%. That is what I have been saying all along. That includes the last eight years.

Technically, you didn't misquote me, as you used my actual words, but you showed them as being in response to a different comment that they were actually in response to.

No, as I pointed out above in this post.. That is actually what you did. You took one piece of my post and made it seem like I was only saying that, when the rest of the paragraph you took it from did in fact agree with you.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

You are comparing an aerial campaign in Libya to a full on overtake and destruction of Iraq.

No, again. I am not comparing anything. I am saying thousands have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced because of US Middle East intervention in the last eight years. That does not strike me as the US having learned any lessons.You are the one making needless comparisons. What the US has done in Libya and Syria over the last eight years was wrong. It is really just that simple. Nothing you have written changes this. You talk of the lessons learned by the US? Tell that to the people that used to live in Libya and Syria when they were stable. Tell that to all the civilians mistakenly bombed and killed by drones over the last eight years that the US has learned its lesson from Iraq and Libya. You have convinced yourself, I highly doubt you'll convince them. You certainly have not convinced me.

You are trying to claim his words mean something other than what they mean. In other words, you're wishing they had a different meaning.

No. Let me put it this way:

If you have a wedding and you ask a group of friends if they want to attend and all say 'Yes' but one who pauses and says indifferenly 'I guess so.' I doubt highly that you would consider it an endorsement or agreement. It means "maybe" "possibly", but it is not a clear yes. Add to that that the man was not a politician or policy maker of any sort. Add to that that it was only said once and it adds up to someone who was not much of a supporter.

Your argument was someone is going to be there, likely Russia. I responded to let them - it can be their problem. I'm not under some sort of illusion that they actually need your permission or anything, it's a figure of speech.

This ignores the fact that the US has no interest in letting Russia be the only super power in the ME. That was certainly true for Obama's time in office.

take a look at how you misquoted me then tried to give me a hard time for it.

I did not misquote you. I cut and pasted what you wrote above. If I misquoted you, I would have changed what you wrote. Perhaps you should re-read our discussion. I am not the one who is confused. You seem to be arguing merely for the sake of arguing. If so, I am not really interested in that.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

You're comparing some aerial bombing to a full on land and ground invasion of an entire country, a full on war in which the country was invaded, occupied, and the military destroyed.

No, I am saying both were bad. It is as simple as that. Look at what is happening in Syria and Libya and tell me things are not horribly bad in both countries. The US and the West are deeply responsible for it. You seem to want to soften the description of Syria and Libya. I do not understand why you would want to do that.

So let Russia be there. The ME can focus their anger at Russia then.

Who are you talking to now? I am not the US. I have nothing to do with the US. I am not defending the US's policies in the Middle East. You, however, do seem to be defending the last 8 years of US Middle East policies that have led two countries, Libya and Syria to become the messes they are. I have not and am not defending US policies in Iraq. I am saying Libya and Syria were also huge US mistakes and they were made in the last 8 years.

but only in response to your beating one.

Hardly. In reference to suggesting that you were saying it is unfair to claim that Trump was against the second Iraq War, I wrote:

however. If that is what you are trying to say, I would agree with that.

To which you again wrote:

And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement.

I said I agreed with something you wrote and you wrote it again anyway. That is the very definition of needlessly beating a dead horse.

Lastly, you claimed twice what you thought my wishes for Trump's words were and you were wrong. You should apologize and admit your assumption that I was a Trump supporter was completely and absolutely off-base.

Yeah, you can't let what he actually said get in the way of your impression of what you wish he had said

I don't need to pretend he said something I wish he said, his words say what he said.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

Well, as there was no invasion or declaration of war made, I'd argue that a lesson was learned.

There was aerial bombing and military intervention in Libya that helped pretty much destroy what was otherwise a fairly stable country. Quite similar to what happened in Iraq even if the scale might have been smaller. The US has in fact supported groups in Syria that has in turn resulted in that country being destabilized. President Obama shook hands with Qaddafi in 2009 and then in 2011 demanded he step down. Hardly much learned from what I can see.

insofar as I think the US needs to entirely withdraw from the Middle East.

Somebody is going to be there, probably Russia, so I highly doubt the US will leave the region in the foreseeable future. I think they should stop trying to topple other countries' governments, though. It is not their job to do so. Yet, the past eight years have seen the US trying to do just that in Syria, Libya and Egypt. There is really no defense for it. It is and was mistaken to do so.

And yet, as I said before, still an endorsement.

You are now beating a dead horse.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

And in doing so, he agreed that he was for the war.

It is definitely clear that he was more for than against the second Iraq War. However, as I said before, 'I guess so.' is hardly a ringing endorsement and hardly a hardcore position. It is hardly a warmonger position. It is a reason why he cannot claim he was against the second Iraq War, however. If that is what you are trying to say, I would agree with that.

Bottom line for me is that I hope things are not going to be as bad as many are suggesting they will get. Despite what many claim, the world has even more wars now and a lot of it has to do with US foreign policy and supporting dangerous and extremist rebels. One would think that a lesson would have been learned after Iraq, but Libya and Syria prove that it hasn't yet. Unless the West change their perspectives on the Middle East, I don't see things getting a whole lot better.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

Nope. Quote:

Are you for invading Iraq?

Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.

I believe the "I wish it was done correctly." was referring to the first Iraq War, not the second one. It is clear he supported the first one, as many more did than the second one.

where he agreed

"I guess so" is more acquiescence than solid hard core agreement.

Yeah, you can't let what he actually said get in the way of your impression of what you wish he had said.

As for your wish about what I thought of the quote, your wish was incorrect. I am not a Trump supporter.

I know you enjoy patrolling JT looking for 'gotcha' moments to get what you feel are boasting points, but you are trolling in the wrong place this time.

It is clear that Trump was just going along with what he thought was the de rigueur way to answer the question in the interview.

Either way, carry on. There are bigger problems ahead than this, for example the very topic question above. I don't think things are going to get much better, at least for a while, no matter who is president of the US. That said, Trump was not who I had hoped would be elected.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

Yeah, you can't let what he actually said get in the way of your impression of what you wish he had said.

Kind of like what you seem to be doing here, heh? If you were to actually check my posting history, you will see I am not a Trump supporter.

Simillarly:

Disinterested maybe, yet he supported it nonetheless.

It seems to me you and others that are claiming support are confusing "support" with "acquiescence". It is obvious that Trump was answering off the cuff and did not have a real solid opinion on the matter. If you want to take that to mean hard-core support, go for it. However, I don't see it that way.His words in the very interview you linked do not reflect it that way, either.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: In view of all the terror attacks that have hit Europe and countries in other parts of the world in the past two years, do you think the global security situation will get worse or better when Donald See in context

Trump supports Iraq war (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs), Trump and supporters claim he didn't.

"I guess so...." is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Iraq War. It is my impression that he really had no opinion on the matter and that both those that say he was against it and those that say he was for it are mistaken. He really did not seem to care much either way and that comes across quite clearly in the interview you linked. He was speaking as an obviously disinterested observer is my take on that interview.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: No. of foreign tourists to Japan reaches record 24.04 mil in 2016 See in context

Your average Hanako or Taro sure wouldn't like to be spit on when travelling abroad, though, and they engage in the same behaviour whether they will admit it or not.

"Spit on"? What ever are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: 金 chosen as kanji character best representing 2016 See in context

In the world's third largest economy, Tina?

Actually, Tina is mistaken. The last figures show a poverty rate of approximately 16%. I believe it is around 15% in the US.

Anyway, here's hoping more people get more of a fair piece of the pie in the future. Perhaps that is the meaning of choosing 金 for the the kanji of the year.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Man arrested on suspicion of pushing woman off platform at Osaka train station See in context

I think typical is a fair call.

The quote was 'typical Japanese reaction'. Meaning the supposed reaction of the surrounding people would be atypical in other countries. I am unconvinced of this. No one in this discussion so far has convinced me otherwise. You mentioned you saw one (1) dangerous event and you have decided to use that as a base with which to judge over a hundred million people. That doesn't fly with me and it is sad that it would fly with anyone.

I would like to retract from my previously made comment that comments such as yours are typical of readers here. Actually, a lot of the people in this very discussion feel the same as I do. What I find sad is that some of you have not managed to get to know enough people here to know that they are people just like everywhere else in the world.

I wonder if those claiming a unique Japanese trait to avoid helping others would be the same people to complain if someone were to claim Japanese were unique in some positive way. Would you then be trying to claim that people in other countries were just the same?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Man arrested on suspicion of pushing woman off platform at Osaka train station See in context

Typical Japanese reaction.

Sadly, this is a typical reader reaction. However, based on personal experience and years of reading news stories to the contrary, I do not think this is a 'typical Japanese reaction'. People saw a woman get pushed off the platform and one can imagine people naturally were first looking at the woman who had been pushed. This could have easily given the suspect time to flee before anyone had a chance to grab him. This could happen the same way and has in any country that has trains.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Posted in: Trump jovially rejoins campaign trail, tosses hat to a fan See in context

I am afraid that Trump really doesn't give a damn about governing

As Arianna Huffington said in an interview recently, we have to stop judging Trump on what he did in the campaign and wait to judge him once he is president. All that matters is what he does once he is president.

and as such, his agenda will be Paul Ryan's agenda.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. It certainly wasn't true during the campaign. Whatever Trump is, he certainly has not been the GOP.

I hope things work out for the best for the US because we are all somehow tied into their fate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Voting begins for 'moe' global warming prevention campaign characters See in context

Not on this issue.

It is a matter of taste. John Oliver is not from here. The mascots here are not created for him, nor are they created for the majority of his audience.

where was Kumamon during the earthquakes and aftershocks in Kumamoto and the region in April? Forget about the fact that people were tweeting concern over a fictional character possibly having been hurt in the quakes and not expressing concern over the victims for a moment, why was his cute face and bouncing around not seen about the area

It was used for charity work after the earthquake. It helped people feel even closer to their stricken communities. Perhaps you should learn more about things before you talk about them.

現在、平成28年熊本地震支援のための、募金活動、チャリティーイベントを実施するにあたり、くまモンのイラストを利用したいとの申し出を多数いただいております。利用対象 熊本地震支援のための募金活動、チャリティーイベント等で使用するポスター、のぼり、チラシ、募金箱等 ※チャリティー目的であっても、商品・グッズ(非売品のもの含む)等への利用については、通常の利用許諾手続きが必要になります。

https://kumamon-official.jp/information

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump jovially rejoins campaign trail, tosses hat to a fan See in context

Laguna, I share the concerns you have raised.

I would love to see a pragmatic New Yorker Trump as president;

Me, too.

problem is, signs are pointing very much against this.

Perhaps. The concerns you raise cannot be ignored. I do see other signs that point to possible hope. Things like Trump meeting people like Gore and getting their input.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.