dude now time magazine is a joke. i get time and economist. and the difference is just mind boggling.
Think about how I feel? I've been reading the magazine since the early 60's. Not long ago, I found some old issues from the late 60's I'd saved in the attic of my parents house. The difference is simply stunning. Time today is People Magazine with a smattering of news. It's enough to make you hurl. The coverage of Vietnam is incredibly better. No comparison, at all, with the dribble of today. D&D. Dogs Bark. Really.
for sure. however post and the times still have their articles which are great. especially a lot of the katrina coverage and the terrorism related government investigations have been fantastic. i can't imagine how anyone can rely on usatoday for news.
Is no one concerned with the fact that Iran is a much larger enemy than Iraq, and the US troops are nowhere near as strong as they were before Iraq (nevermind before Afghanistan). Iran has three times the population of Iraq. Almost double the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. What about that the US can't afford to do this (literaly)? This theory that the plan is to surround Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) then move in.... Shouldn't that be subject to the condition that you secure those two countries before you make your move? Is there any better example than Iraq to make it clear that war is not a good idea? Notes: 1) Ahmedinejjad proposed moving Israel, not wiping it out. Still not good, but invasion and wipe out are strong words. They imply that someone said all Israelis should be murdered and buried, with their land given out to someone else. That didn't happen. 2) Iranians won't respond the way Iraqis did. Foreign invasion is foreign. Don't for a second sit here and think that Iranians aren't wondering if they're falling for 1979 all over again? No one likes to talk about this but the fact of the matter is the government was corrupt when the revolution began, the immigration rate was still among the highest in the world, and organized crime was growing at an alarming rate. Everything wasn't nice and pretty. I'm sure, there were a lot of luxuries back then, but it was absolutely not the equivalent of a happy country. Many many many people were unhappy. So many people were fooled into thinking the revolution was what they wanted. Some got what they wanted, but most didn't. So there IS a doubt in the minds of Iranian people about whether they should continue the steady progress they've seen over the years, or tear it down and put it in the hands of..... WHO KNOWS? Who would be the leader of Iran? Reza Pahlavi Jr.? You think he'd be safe longer than a week in Iran? There's lots to consider here. Unfortunately, the leaders involved are both irrational and trigger-happy. The two groups that should be the focus of this problem is the US people and the Iranian youth. Both those groups are better served if the US stays out of Iran.
Ahmedinejjad's words about wiping Israel off the map were painted on a Shahab-3 missle which rolled through Tehran durring a military parade. If you want to apologise for him, fine, but don't try to turn things around and imply that the man is misunderstood and really loves Jews.
Do you read Persian? I don't. But according to wikipedia, he only said he said "Israel must vanish from the pages of history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Of course I don't read Farsi. When it comes right down to it I didn't see the missle in question. But... This is exactly the type of thing that Wikipedia is not useful for. The same goes for it's coverage of the Bosnian war, and many other recent and still divisive conflicts. People who want to propagandize on Wikipedia can and do. I've seen both translations, but I always find the 'vanish' one comming from those sources like bloggers and other individuals who have an anti-war agenda. From the militarists and (most importantly) from the impartial news organizations I hear the other one. I find that some people like to believe alternate translations because it makes them feel that they have special knowledge. If it really makes you happy then "Israel must vanish from the pages of history." was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran. Does the alteration of translation really make that much of a difference when it is scrawled on the side of a ballistic missile? How about "We Will Trample America Under Our Feet" on another missile at the same parade? Both translations describe Israel going from a state of existance to a state of nonexistance. He wishes to turn all land west of the Jordan River into the Islamic Republic of Palestine.
Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran Michael Roston Published: Monday January 15, 2007 Print This Email This Bank sees February or March timeline if Israel strikes Warning that investors might be "in for a shock," a major investment bank has told the financial community that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned. The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled "Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities." ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robinson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update Prophet that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack. ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point." Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that "we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House." Robertson suggests a February-March 2007 timeline for several reasons. First, there is a comparable time line with Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear program in 1981, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political troubles within Israel. Second, late February will see Iran's deadline to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1737, and Israel could use a failure of Iran and the UN to follow through as justification for a strike. Finally, greater US military presence in the region at that time could be seen by Israel as the protection from retaliation that it needs. In his Jan. 15 update, Robertson points to a political reason that could make the assault more likely - personnel changes in the Bush administration may have sidelined opponents of attacking Iran. ----------------- The full ING PDF documents can be downloaded at this link for the Jan. 9 report, and this link for the Jan. 15 update. http://www.rawprint.com/images/Iran07b.pdf
Well, I suppose these have little to do with the bias of source. I think it is possible for you to find some Farsi-English dictionary to see what it really means. Actually, the subject in that sentence is not "Israel" but "the regime occupying Jerusalem". So the "correct" translation doesn't really call for the nonexistence of Israel but the nonexistence of "regime occupying Jerusalem". The "correct" one is not as serious. It is kind of like people can hate Bush Admin but they can still like American people. As to my take on the nonexistence of Israel, I am neither happy nor sad about it. It is not our business. We should just let Israel and Iran duke it out themselves if they really want to. We should not take side by giving hundred of millions of tax dollars to Israel every year.
Euphamisms don't translate well. I may not speak farsi, but I do speak a foreign language well enough to know that if you try and translate everything using only a dictionary you will have no idea what is going on. This is like saying the KKK doesn't hate black people as long as they are down on the plantation saying 'Yessa massa'. Aminnejad has no problem with Jews as long as they are willing to become second class citizens. As far as I'm concerned there is still no difference in either statement. Both of them call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Personally if I were an Israeli Jew I would rather be wiped off the face of the earth than turned into a subhuman in the Islamic Republic of Palestine. I don't know anything about you, so please don't misunderstand. But I see this same argument from some people on this board whom I suspect really do have a horse in this race, who really do care about the outcome. I don't know in this case whether you are one of the forked tongue serpents, or whether you are poor innocent Eve being lead to the apple. This argument mirrors those I've saeen in mob movies where a criminal convinces a cop to look the other way while a crime is commited. In other words, "Here officer... You take all this money and you don't have to do anything. You just look the other way. Because you aren't doing anything you won't really be doing anything wrong...". I've seen enough mobster movies to know that the cop who looks the other way always eventually realizes that he has become a criminal and sold out his beliefs for a couple of pieces of silver. I don't want to be that guy. I will not look the other way and I think that anybody who is legitimately neutral on this issue and subscribes to this argument is a fool.
i find it immensely amusing to find all these American suckers unknowingly equating Israeli interests with US interests. Every time the jewish lobby and the israeli foreign ministry encounters sentiments like the ones expressed in this thread, they must be patting themselves on the back. why the heck should you care if hezbollah is lobbing rockets at israel? why should any more your tax money go to protecting israel? and to send thousands more of our boys to die in the middle of nowhere? to dump a trillion dollars into starting and waging a 3-front war at the expense of american interests everywhere else in the world? it is the height of folly, and yet i see some people in this thread treat it as if it were our only option... when will americans see the light? that pulling the plug on an israeli govt whose rogue actions has alienated the entire world, (and thereby saving ourselves billions/yr in military/economic aid, not to mention billions more in anti-terrorist funding) is a hell of a lot more cost effective in creating peace in the middle east and earning the goodwill of muslims around the world? Compare that to starting yet another unilateral war we cannot hope to win against muslim extremist who will only grow stronger? isn't it just common sense?!?!?
Well, the truth is that there are way more Arabs killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Arabs. (I don't know much about the tally between Israelis and Persians however). It is not like the Israelis are innocents either. Another thing is that international relationship is like relationship in a jungle. It is dog-eat-dog out there because there is no supranational organization to act as world police. Therefore I don't think your analogy works here. Anyway, even without our assistance, I still think Israel will exist on its own right for a long long time simply due to its merit of being strong state.
Well, unless we outlaw lobbying, I don't think this can be fixed in the short term because this is a systemic problem in a democracy. It maybe solved for the long term if we can assimilate the Jewish citizens better. Looked at the German Americans. Today, there really isn't any German communities around. We successfully assimiliated tens of millions of them before WWII. They even helped us defeat the Nazis instead of joining them. I am optimistic that eventually the Jewish citizens here will be assimiliated and we won't have this Israel lobby any more.
I would not disagree. I think Israelis kill many times as many Palestinians as the other way around. I don't believe that Israelis have any kind of moral high ground. I would suggest, however, this is due to the fact that Israel 'won' each time they were attacked by Palestine and not the other way around. Palestinian rockets aren't very good at killing Israelis, but I don't think that necessarily means that the Israelis should give the Palestinians equal weapons to 'make it fair'. Would you at least agree that the Palestinians would 'equal the score' or 'take the lead' if they had the means to do so?
Well, I am just saying the strong preys on the weak in international politics. That explains why US can get away with the "illegal" Iraq War. You might feel all these are immoral but that's the way the world works now without a supranational world police.
Aside from any Borg references... what does that mean... 'will be assimilated'? The Jewish citizens here are every bit as much an American citizen as you are. And FWIW, there are quite a few Evangelical Christians who are more fervent supporters of an Israeli lobby than many American Jews. I recall hearing Pat Robertson expressing his displeasure with Israel over evacuating settlements that were on Palestinian land.
From my own standard, complete assimilation requires the complete loss of identity. For example, nowadays, we don't German Americans any more even though one fourth of our population have German ancestry. We still call Jewish Americans Jewish Americans. That means there is still something that separate them from the "real" (ie completely assimilated) Americans. Yeah, you are right about that. But supporting Israel is only part of their focus and only their extreme elements who believe in Rupture cares about that more than the others. Still, the Israel lobby is mostly run by AIPAC whose leadership comprises of people of Jewish descent. It is not surprising to see Jewish Americans have big influence in America. After all, they are the biggest minority group not completely assimilated (6 mil out of 300 mil). Their average income doubles that of American average. These two factors make them the most powerful minority group here.
Sorry, but that's silly. I mean, complete loss of identity? What is that? And you live in Texas and think we don't have German Americans? African Americans? Mexican Americans? Chinese Americans? Muslim ... Indian ... Evangelical Christian... Italian...Americans? Many people are proud of their heritage and maintain many of their customs and connections with the old country. And there's nothing wrong with not being 'assimilated'. This nation's identity is more a mix of peoples and religions from all over the world than some generic, homogenized population.
What's wrong with identifying with a different culture? As a son of immigrants, I'm damn proud of my heritage and identify as an Indian American. Complete assimilation is asinine and foolish. Assimilation breeds ignorance because we don't get to experience other cultures. It's why countries in Europe or Japan face so much more racism and discrimination. They try too hard to culturally assimilate others instead of embracing diversity and tolerance. Assimilation efforts breed xenophobia and hate. What makes America great is that we're diverse. We see and interact with different cultures which only works in a world where we don't totally assimilate. We're more culturally aware and competent than nearly any other country in the world. Extremism in America is much less prevalent than other countries because people are exposed to other points of view. I like my identity and don't plan to shed it, and I wouldn't expect anything else from someone who's Jewish, Arab, Russian, Chinese, etc..
With all due respect, are you nuts?? Do you have the United States mixed up with another country? One thing we are not, and that's a monolithic bloc of assimilated citizens. We never have been. Ever. Frankly, you harm whatever point you're attempting to make by sounding... well, I won't say what you sound like. You would probably find it insulting. D&D. Getting Damn Cold. Even Icy
