Still, according to the FBI reports, Jews are still the largest targets of hate crimes by far.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
In the U.S., Jews were targeted an astonishing 40.7 percent (40.7%) more than Muslims in the year 2014.
Taking in the context of the San Bernadino and Orlando massacres, we are still a very tolerant culture.
"Iranians entered modernity being pushed around and shaped by outsiders in ways that simply were not true of Britain or the US."
During The war of 1812 the British burned our capital, to me that seems a lot more traumatic then seizing the port of Bushihr which, according to my understanding of the 19th century was in response to Persian expansion(under Russian influence) into Afghanistan.
If what you say is true, why no hostility toward Russia? They actually took provinces away from Persia. It seems their actions were far more perniciious than the English.
In any case it still doesn't counter my argument that India has done far better on the international stage, and suffered much, much, more than Persia ever did.
As far as the US is concerned, they were a minimal player in the 19th century. They only established relations with Iran in the mid 1850s. The US really did not have international presence until Mckinley(1898) and that was generally confined to Latin America and the Pacific.
India suffered far more than that, over hundreds of years. Besides, that might explain the 20th century but what about Nasir-Din-Shah(ruled from 1851-1896) who was so greedy that he sold state institutions to foreigners with the highest bid. The one responsible reformer, Amir Kabir, was put to death at his decree(cerca 1853). And the sheer avariciousness of the Shiite clergy that kept the people in grinding poverty.. This was at a time when the US was not even a player on the world stage.
Iran is like a man who suffers from the flu and stomach cancer and blames everything on the flu. How about removing the cancer that is causing 95% of his problems.
India had suffered far more at the hands of the colonial powers than Iran (Iran was never colonized) and yet India moved on, they have democratic institutions, a good economy, and they respect the religious minorities.
The shiite clerics have hurt the Iranian people far more than the US or the English
And some other unpleasant things called facts for you.
Even at Brown's funeral, some speakers used the occasion to call for social change, with one of Brown's cousins urging those in attendance to make their voices heard at the polls because "we have had enough of seeing our brothers and sisters killed in the streets."
To put it bluntly, voter turnout for Ferguson township was far from historic.
Of 24,334 registered voters, 10,222 cast ballots in Tuesday's election, a turnout of slightly more than 42%, according to an initial tally.
There wasn't a wave of new voters, either, as only 204 residents registered to vote between August 11, the Monday after Brown was shot, and October 8, the registration deadline for Tuesday's election, said Rita Days, St. Louis County's director of elections. Fifty-six additional residents have registered since October 8, she said.
Of course, 42% is only the initial tally, and the county has two weeks to verify that figure with the state, so the number could rise or drop, Days said. Still, she felt it was a strong turnout.
"This is a very big number considering the last mayoral election, when Mayor (James) Knowles was elected -- that was 16%," Days said.
But comparing municipal to general and midterm election turnouts is apple and oranges, Knowles said in an email. Since 16.2% of voters first put Knowles in office in 2011, voter turnout for the annual city elections has never topped 12%. The 2012 general election, however, lured 76.4% of voters to the polls.
"In 1990, Ferguson, Mo. was a middle class suburban enclave north of St. Louis with a population about three-quarters white. In 2000, the town’s population was roughly split between black and white with an unemployment rate of 5%. By 2010, the population was two-thirds black,"
There was an election with Obama on the ticket, in 2012, when local officials were up for re-election. So before criticizing other people's facts do some fact checking yourself.
I am the father of 3 multi-racial children and I warn them not to expect to be treated equally by the police. I do this for their own protection. The Treyvon Martin case and Jordan Davis case really tore me up inside, because I believe they were vicitimized by people with racial issues.
Ferguson is a different story, however. Why doesn't Ferguson have a police force that is represenative of its population? The only answer is that the inhabitants of that town did not vote locally in large numbers. If that is the case, then they are partly responsible for the appointment of a police chief so ill equiped to deal with a diverse population.
Mark Brown is not a very good poster child for civil rights either. I am no way justifiying murder if that what it was, but he was a bully when he strong armed those cigars from the owner of the convenience store. I agree that the police badly handled this situation but one thing I did notice was the marks on the officer's neck, which means someone must have grabbed him (or he faked it). If you grab a police office hard enough to leave a mark, then expect to get shot white, black or green.
I am not a big fan of the US judicial system because it is a two tiered system, but this case is not a good example of that.
While you make some valid points, you missed some. Typically, Europeans spend far less money/per capita on defense than the US does. When they do contribute troops to international endeavors they tend to be non-combat units. They are somewhat shirking their responsibility and living under the shadow of the US defense umbrella, and when a country really does violate the norms of international behavior(e.g. Russia) they give a very tepid response.
US workforce, in spite of all its disadvantages, is much more flexible than the Europeans. As a result US corporates are more nimble when adjusting to the economic environment. The US economy has easily outperformed virtually all European countries over the last five years.
As far as treatment of the elderly, I am glad I don't live in Europe. Good luck on trying to find a job after a mandatory retirement age of 55. You won't get hired no matter what your qualifications.
As far as guns, we are nuts, and people who are so fearful should be seeing a psychologist because they definitely have issues. Those extreme minority, however, don't represent the majority of Americans. The gun nuts are ammo-sexuals and that is all they care about, a pretty pathetic existence but not the majority.
As far as the US medical system, it is probably way more corrupt than most countries of the world. It is ridiculously expensive.
Our news media is awful, dominated by the same no-nothing charlatans on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.
Yes we suffer from exceptionalism but in the land of blind the one eyed handicapped guy is king. There is no altenative. Europe is too weak, China is too amoral, Russia and Brazil are too corrupt, Iran is too insane. So as bad as we are, there is simply no alternative.
I think we underestimate the value of the ghost soldiers. Because they are invisible and invulnerable(you can't kill a dead man) couldn't you use them to fight ISIS.
I have thought about this deal a lot and I do hope it goes through. Yes, I know that Israel probably has about 100 bombs and even if Iran does go for the bomb it should have the right to do so (India, Pakistan, Israel all violated the non-proliferation treaty without much consequences).
There is one big difference, Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. In fact it calls for its annihilation and a referendum of the original inhabitants to decide if the non-original Jews can stay. This is the pronouncement by the former president and, more importantly, the supreme leader. Israel, on the other hand, does not have a policy to annihilate Iran (in Pakistan's and India's case they don't have this policy either) and their potential use would be a last ditch defense. That is the rub, that is the difference, that is why Iran cannot have the bomb and there has to be sufficient safeguards in place so they can't develop one.
Back in the 1980s when solar power was still really expensive, we used solar energy to power the remote link to Radio Baha'i. Even at that time solar energy was cheaper than the alternative fuel(diesel). We were 20 miles from the highway and the grid connection, and diesel had to by carried by pickup over dirt roads that became rivers of mud in the rainy season.
There are a lot of places in the world that are in a similar situation and solar is now the only way to provide electricity to these areas. There are also a lot of side benefits to solar rural electrification. Electricity means more services, more industries, and more jobs. When people have more opportunities at home they won't move to the overcrowded cities. Having lived in a rural area in Panama for many years, the quality of life is so much better! Opportunites for people in rural areas might even reverse the population flow.
...
I managed to cut back on fuel oil usage by 25%. I did this by replacing mercury thermostats (these should be illegal because of the mercury and they are incredibly inefficient) with electronic programmable ones. I use space heaters for my bedrooms and just keep the downstairs above 50 degrees at night and 60 degrees during the day. I did this not because of political affiliation but because I save 800 dollars a year.
I am waiting for solar panels to drop some more. If it gets down to a dollar a watt, I will probably invest in something, and replace my fuel oil system with an electric one.
In the first quote the Qur'an 4 choices are given, the last would be banishment, which given the brutal nature of conflict in the 7th century was probably pretty tolerant in its time.
There seems to be a lot of assassinations of caliphs and imams in early Islam. Here is a list
Umar (2nd caliph) assassinated
Uthman (third caliph) assassinated
Ali (fourth caliph) assassinated
Hassan (2nd imam) assasinated
Husayn (third imam) assasinated
There were many of the 12 imams that were also murdered.
This is extremely astute on behalf of the Tunisians. The EU is committed to reducing its carbon footprint by a significant amount by 2040. This will dovetail perfectly with that policy.
The news in the US is just one step above state sponsored media because it limits access to critical information and tends to play on their fears.
The CNN network ( or should I call it the charlatan news network) repeats the same stories ad nausea. During the search for Malaysian flight 1370 the coverage was so dominant that I really thought that Anderson Cooper should rename his show to Anderson Cooper 370.
Gun control is a bit puzzling for me because the US is really not that dangerous, I lived in Panama for 20 years and it had a murder rate 5 times the US. Nevertheless, there was only time I even considered buying a gun, after the US invaded and there was no Panamanian police force, but I decided against it. It would probably be better for people to seek therapy for their irrational fears rather than purchasing that extra gun for Christmas.
That is a bit misleading. You are forgetting four things.
1. Cost of water cooling nuclear can be very high especially where water is a scare commodity.
2. Ongoing maintenance, which is much higher for a nuclear plant which is very complex when compared with a solar array.
3. Damages in case of a failure. If you are engaged in risky behavior you are required to buy insurance. This is like buying a house but not buying home owner's insurance. What happens when there is a failure in a solar energy plant? Nothing. What happens when there is a failure in a nuclear plant? Please visit northern Ukraine or Japan for your answer.
4. Where do you store the nuclear waste. We still haven't figured that out in the US. What is the cost of storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years?
Levelized cost of nuclear is 96, for solar it is 130. Given its advantages I would prefer to pay the the 130
I do get a chuckle about politicians talking about the coal industry in Pennsylvania, though. Pennsylvania has massive amounts of it and most of us have used coal stoves to lower heating costs during the winter. It is incredibly dirty.
Here in PA we have had two environment catastrophes, Three mile Island is pretty well known but Centralia is not, a coal vein caught fire in the 60s and it is still burning. On the other side of the valley from Centralia is Ashland, a product of strip mining, so stark, it looks like it came straight out of the Great Gatsby.
I will be thrilled to see a significant conversion to renewables , hydro, solar, and wind.
I have worked with solar energy since the 80s (in Panama). Back in those days we used it to power a Baha'i rural development project. Diesel was simply too expensive and difficult to use. The twenty mile trek from the highway was impassible during the raining season. It was expensive though.
Since that time prices have dropped a lot. It is approaching grid parity and even in Pennsylvania where I currently live, my friends and I have talked about it, solely from a business perspective. When it reaches a pay back period of 5 years without tax credits, then there will be a seismic shift in electrical generation. On a personal and business level I could give a hoot about where the panels come from, whether from the US or China or Iran. I don't care.
So you spend 300 billion dollars to manufacture medical isotopes that you could buy on the international market for a couple of million. Doesn't sound like much of a business deal.
I kind of understand your point. Pride causes all countries to pursue non-practical policies. Hopefully, the Iranian leaders are wise enough to pursue a more practical and better approach to electrification, like Germany has (it mothballed its nuclear reactors). Honestly, though, I don't believe they will and probably will develop a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia will probably pursue on then because a fear of Iranian hegemony. Then we will be facing an India/Pakistan type of situation.
As my grandmother used to say, just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something.
Saudi Arabia is a bit of a laggard as well, in spite of achieving grid parity of solar
"Grid parity (or socket parity) occurs when an alternative energy source can generate electricity at a levelized cost (LCoE) that is less than or equal to the price of purchasing power from the electricity grid. The term is most commonly used when discussing renewable energy sources, notably solar power and wind power."
They still generate 40% of their power from diesel ( what a waste!). They sound like a candidate for the nuclear club as well.
Regarding renewable energy, you are incorrect. Solar would seem the most attractive alternative, given the number of days of sunlight. Notwithstanding, from the period 2005-2011, Iran's solar energy grew only 25% while the rest of the world grew at 2000%. If you look at a map of solar energy production Iran remains one of the world's renewable laggards (behind Europe, Africa,China, India and North America.
Furthermore, Iran flares off 10% of its natural gas production which could provide 100% of Iran's electricity, eliminating the need for diesel generation(40% or Iran's electrical generation), which is an incredible waste of a valuable commodity. The switch to natural gas would reduce Iran's carbon footprint by 10% and eliminate other pollutants(from burning diesel).
It really isn't an embrace of the Shia crescent. The American public will never accept that. I think the current US administration is looking for a foreign policy legacy, something like Richard Nixon's China legacy. Unfortunately, the president has suffered a lot of foreign policy reverses. He needs this agreement with Iran to work to leave something positive behind. In the long run, however, it probably isn't good for the US, Israel, the predominantly Sunni countries in the Middle East, nor Iran itself. It is a lose lose lose situation for everyone and will only trigger an arms race in a very unstable part of the world.
Currently, Iran flares(burns off) 10% of its natural gas and uses 15% of its production to inject into oil fields. That is a loss of 25%. Furthermore, 40% of Iran's electrical generation is through burning oil, an incredible waste of money. Just by converting all electric generation to natural gas Iran could save its more precious commodity, oil for the future. It has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the world. That is surely enough to bridge the gap until solar or some other energy source becomes cost effective.
It is intriguing why Iran invests so much effort into an energy source that is being abandoned by the rest of the world. In Iran's case, the disadvantages are:
Consumption of a valuable resource, water, for cooling the core.
It is expensive and not very scalable.
Where do you store the waste (the US still hasn't been able to address this issue)
Iran is prone to earthquakes, which makes it a terrible place to build a reactor.
There is no advantage to pursuing nuclear energy in Iran's case unless your intention is to build the bomb.
From the year 2005 to 2011 world solar energy production has increased by 2000%. During the same time period, Iran's solar energy production only increased by 25%, in spite of the following advantages:
"Iran's unique geographical position means 90% of the country has enough sun to generate solar power 300 days a year. According to PressTV Iran has 520 watts per hour per square meter of solar radiation every day.[54] Other sources give an average of 2,200 kilowatt-hour solar radiation per square meter."
And yet they waste billions of dollars on their nuclear technology program on an outdated technology, that most of the rest of the world is discarding.
I have always wondered why Iran is so adamant about its nuclear program. It seems they are betting on old technology when they clearly have other options.
Nuclear reactors require a lot of water for cooling, something that is in short supply in the Middle East. I live next to a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, and as wet as it is here, the Schuykill River is not enough. We have to pump water from abandoned coal mines and reservoirs, as well as the Delaware River 50 miles away. I know the Iranians plan on using sea water because of its location (Bushir) but that has problems as well.
"Using salt water to cool the reactor is a "Hail Mary" move. As the water reaches high temperatures in the core salt will precipitate and stick to the hot surfaces. Before long the pipes will get internally coated with solid salt deposits and the flow will be restricted then cut off altogether. You can imagine the rest. "
With so many days of sunlight and the cost of solar panels plummeting, it would seem that solar energy would be the correct choice. It would also allow the electrification of villages far from the grid.
Or if they are intent on nuclear energy, what about a thorium core nuclear reactor? Thorium is more plentiful and much harder to weaponize than current nuclear reactors. In the late 60s the US developed a working prototype for one. In spite of its economic advantages it was rejected by Oakridge for the following reason:
"The reasons were that uranium breeder reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons."
This was our rationale for rejecting the more reliable and safer Thorium design. It is probably Iran's as well.
Good points. As I remember there were issues with the disenfranchised Shiite populations in the Gulf States during the Arab Spring.
At any rate, majority governments have to make a special efforts to bring in minorities. If you have a couple of more or less equal candidates for a job the minority should get it.
This makes sense not only from a political point of view but also a psychological one. Different frames of reference are invaluable when making policy decisions.
The problem with the liberal view of the US being the source of all evil in the world is that it ignores the homegrown evil in the rest of the world and gives it a free pass. If you abide by the "Marquess of Queensberry rules" in a street fight you get the shit kicked out of you. An example would be the border tribal Pakistani groups that have been crossing over the Afghani border murdering and terrorizing innocent civilians. They would do that with or without the drone attacks. Or the fact that Ossam Bin Liden was living in the open a few miles from Pakistan's West Point.
Truth is every country has its negative element. We have our Sarah Palins but Russia has its Alex Duggins or Iran has its Khameinis. I know perfectly well my country's shortcomings:
It's two tiered judicial system
It's irrational need for firearms to face a mostly fictitious fear
It's unilateralism that prevents it from even supporting benign institutions such as the international criminal court.
It's vaunted medical system that is by far the most expensive in the world.
Even if we could correct these ills overnight those evils abroad would still be alive and kicking.
Wouldn't a contraction of oil supplies be a boon to the renewable energy industry? A move to non-fossil fuels would provide greater economic security than domestic oil production, which will inevitably decrease after 2025.
Actually, south east Asia turned out pretty good as well.
But getting back to the Middle East, there are homegrown movements that promote religious tolerance. The Iranian cleric, ayatollah hamid masoumi tehrani, comes to mind, who courageously stated regarding the Baha'i community of Iran, "symbolic action to serve as a reminder of the importance of valuing human beings, of peaceful coexistence, of cooperation and mutual support, and avoidance of hatred, enmity and blind religious prejudice."
Also, the recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Malala. These are the people we should be looking to.
If we justify the actions of the extreme fundamentalists, on the other hand, we are enabling the worst sort. The violence will never end. Those fundamentalists have built their belief edifice on a whole slew of misconceptions and false traditions. They have no place in the modern world. Take for instance their view on apostasy and capital punishment. If you really look at the Koran it only touches on it about maybe 3 times, and nowhere does it recommend the death penalty.
During the 60s there were two main movements among the African Americans, one led by Dr. King, the other by the Black Panthers. Dr. King advocated non-violence, the Black Panthers violence. Who had the most lasting impact on our society?
It sounds like you have never served in the Armed Services. Powell's speech was not craven because it was done out of duty not for self serving interests. I was against the Iraq War well before it was a twinkle in Dick Cheney's eye. It actually made me physically ill. Nevertheless, I always have and always will respect Colin Powell have because I understand the reasons.
Probably not many, but the poll numbers are indicative of attitudes and attitudes drive social behavior.
It seems like an anachronism in this day and age, although, I could see it as an act of treason in the early days of Islam, when their numbers were few and they were surrounded on all sides by hostile forces.
Now it seems to me like an ego thing, "how dare someone leave my religion". If your faith is really strong, it really shouldn't matter if people enter or leave your religion, it is between you and God.
With regard to the death penalty for apostates, this is a good bell weather for other civil liberties. Turkey is a good example because it is secular state and relatively liberal. Even so, according to a recent poll, 5% of Muslims there favor the death penalty for apostates. This is the best case scenario.
Here are some more countries that favor the death penalty for apostates
If you took the same poll here in the US among Christians, it probably would be minuscule.
I am not going to defend the US actions because I am not representing their view point and I disagree with many actions they have taken in the past (e.g. invasion of Iraq, opposition to the ICC).
I don't know if this is true but I found this in wikipedia:
According to one female journalist; “If the Quran does not address the subject, then the clerics will err on the side of caution and make it haram (forbidden). The driving ban for women is the best example.”[14] Another (Sabria Jawhar) believes that “if all women were given the rights the Quran guarantees us, and not be supplanted by tribal customs, then the issue of whether Saudi women have equal rights would be reduced.
Limiting the rights of women also seems to go against the very spirit of Islam(also from wikipedia).
His first wife, Khadijah, was a powerful businesswoman who employed him and then initiated the marriage proposal on her own.[20] Another wife, Aisha commanded an army at the Battle of Bassorah and is the source of many hadiths.[21][22] Muhammad ended female infanticide and established the first rights for women in Arab culture. He reportedly told Muslim men, "You have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you."[23]
Hate to prick a hole in your support of your dictator theory but during the cold war both the US and the USSR supported dictatorial regimes in Africa and Latin America. The US was far more involved in Latin American politics than probably anywhere else. Nevertheless, these countries evolved into democracies without the terrorism that plagues the Middle East. The example I know best is Panama(I lived 20 years). The Panamanians peacefully and patiently negotiated the transfer of the Panama Canal for 15 years with virtually no violence until they obtained their objective. The Panama Canal issue was not just a Panamanian issue but a sore point for all Latin Americans. Nevertheless, few acts of terrorism against civilians were committed.
As far as the US supporting dictators, I have personal experience with that as well. Dictators become entrenched locally way before they are recognized internationally. Once they are entrenched, the only way to do business in that country is to go through a dictator.
Another example you should look at is India. Was there any country in Asia more abused by the European powers that that? It took India hundreds of years to gain independence with very few acts of terrorism. Today they are one of Asia's rising stars.
What is the difference you might ask? It is the concept and the mis-application of Jihad. Originally it was meant to create a society where people could choose their religion, where Muslims could practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately, it has evolved into the cornerstone of many Islamic fundamentalist belief systems. In this day and age it is completely unnecessary because most of the world (with the exception of the Middle East) guarantees religious freedom.
RJ,
Any oppression of minorities is abhorrent. The critical question, however, is the degree of risk, which is increased in direct proportion to the percentage of people that hold anti-social views. An example would be North America. I am sure that African Americans suffered discrimination in Canada but it was far more pernicious and violent in the United States, hence the risk toward African Americans in the US was far greater.
There is no guarantee that acts of violence will not be committed in any country in the world. In the US, however, there are legal mechanisms to put perpetrators in jail, a long time, especially if these crimes are considered hate crimes.
In countries like Iran there is no such mechanism and much of the violence against minorities such as the Baha'is is institutionalized and sanctioned by the state. In the US Muslims have legal recourse, in Iran the Baha'is have none. That is the difference.
As far as flag burning that is a different can of worms because that is an active political statement. This is different than the persecution of law abiding minorities who simply want to get on with their lives. Their crime is because of their beliefs not because of their acts.
"A more likely comparison is between Israel and ISIS. " Interesting premise. Let's test it out. First go to Tel Aviv and tell 100 random people that you are Christian and have no intention of converting to Judaism.
Then go to Mosul but instead tell the people that you have no intention of convert to Islam.
Probably a better use of time would be to organize people to help insulate older houses. I was able to reduce my fuel oil consumption by 30%. I really didn't do it because of global warming. I did because it saved me 900 dollars per year.
Why does the US have to do anything? ISIS is the day of reckoning for those dysfunctional Middle Eastern states.
1. For Syria which could have allowed moderate reform without violence years.
2. For Iraq that blindly chose the sectarian road, worst traveled.
3. For Turkey that took a sharp turn toward fundamentalism.
4. For Iran, which spent so much time persecuting religious minorities, now they get a taste of what they have been dishing out and can no longer even travel to Syria again.
5. For Russia, a reminder of the cost of supporting Assad, and the price of its expansionist policies.
6. For Europeans who don't want to do any lifting concerning their own defense.
7. For China, whose flow of oil might be imperiled, because of a completely AMORAL view of life.
So why do we have to anything for the above 7? Just concentrate on energy independence and alternate energy.
Here we go again. Ukraine has a no right to its own sovereignty because it is in Russia's imaginary back yard. Next you will be calling it "The Ukraine".
Urkraine is an independent country, with its own language and its own culture. As a sovereign state it has every right to establish its own destiny.
And your history is way way off. First, there is only one Russian federation(singular not plural). Ukraine has never been a part of this federation.
Yes, it was part of tsarist Russia a 100 years ago, but it was also part of Poland and, at another time, part of Lithuania. 800 years ago it was also an independent state.
"During the 10th and 11th centuries, it became the largest and most powerful state in Europe.[31] In the following centuries, it laid the foundation for the national identity of Ukrainians and Russians.[32] Kiev, the capital of modern Ukraine, became the most important city of the Rus'."
Nato expanded because the eastern European countries desperately wanted to join out of fear of Russian domination. After looking at Ukraine the past couple of months, can you really blame their anxiety.
Russia is the only country in the world that seems to require a buffer. If I were to say we need to dominate the Mexican government so we can have a buffer between Honduras and us, you would think I was a lunatic. Yes, it is true that Napolean and Hitler did invade Russia, that was over 60 years ago. There is no European threat to Russia. In fact there is not threat to Russia at all.
And we always talk about Ukraine being a buffer as if the feelings of those people don't matter at all. They have a right to a better future and they chose that future during the Madden protests. That was a widespread movement, supported by the people not foreign powers.
If you look at the economic growth of those Eastern European countries that broke free of Russian influence, they are prospering. Ukraine is not, however, and it will never have a decent future unless it liberates itself from Russia.
They have a right to join NATO if they so choose. They have a right to join the European Union if they choose. They have the right to join the Russian custom's union if they choose. It is their choice, not Russia's not the USA's.
Vladimir Putin's foreign policy is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's advance into Sudetenland. In that time Hitler, was interested in protecting ethnic Germans, or so he said. He sent over Nazi thugs and then when the Czech government resisted he took over some of the country, then he took over the non-German part.
Any by the way the oligarchic rule you mentioned, all with the of Yushchenko and the current president Poroshenko were all ethnic Russians who had a cozy relationship with Russia.
And another fact you might consider, that even in eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians is 60%. Another fact you might consider that although the Ukrainian government is responsible for some civilian deaths in eastern Ukraine, the overwhelming number of kidnappings, torture, and murder of civilians is done by the pro-Russian terrorists.
So when you call you senator an idiot you should check your mirror first.
FIrst, the sphere of influence claim doesn't justify the gross violation perpetrated by Russian. When 100000 Russian troops cross over the eastern border and take another chunk of Ukraine are you going to put forth the same argument? Why not take whole country then and Moldavia with it.
Romney understood completely Putin ( I campaigned and voted for Obama). He suffers from the same alpha male syndrome , much greater than George Bush. He despises weakness, saw an opening and took it. He will not stop at Crimea. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/move-the-2018-world-cup
Good points.
8. Allow Baha'is practice their faith. If they can do that, than all other religious minorities would be better off as well.
Still, according to the FBI reports, Jews are still the largest targets of hate crimes by far.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
In the U.S., Jews were targeted an astonishing 40.7 percent (40.7%) more than Muslims in the year 2014.
Taking in the context of the San Bernadino and Orlando massacres, we are still a very tolerant culture.
"Iranians entered modernity being pushed around and shaped by outsiders in ways that simply were not true of Britain or the US."
During The war of 1812 the British burned our capital, to me that seems a lot more traumatic then seizing the port of Bushihr which, according to my understanding of the 19th century was in response to Persian expansion(under Russian influence) into Afghanistan.
If what you say is true, why no hostility toward Russia? They actually took provinces away from Persia. It seems their actions were far more perniciious than the English.
In any case it still doesn't counter my argument that India has done far better on the international stage, and suffered much, much, more than Persia ever did.
As far as the US is concerned, they were a minimal player in the 19th century. They only established relations with Iran in the mid 1850s. The US really did not have international presence until Mckinley(1898) and that was generally confined to Latin America and the Pacific.
India suffered far more than that, over hundreds of years. Besides, that might explain the 20th century but what about Nasir-Din-Shah(ruled from 1851-1896) who was so greedy that he sold state institutions to foreigners with the highest bid. The one responsible reformer, Amir Kabir, was put to death at his decree(cerca 1853). And the sheer avariciousness of the Shiite clergy that kept the people in grinding poverty.. This was at a time when the US was not even a player on the world stage.
Iran is like a man who suffers from the flu and stomach cancer and blames everything on the flu. How about removing the cancer that is causing 95% of his problems.
India had suffered far more at the hands of the colonial powers than Iran (Iran was never colonized) and yet India moved on, they have democratic institutions, a good economy, and they respect the religious minorities.
The shiite clerics have hurt the Iranian people far more than the US or the English
And some other unpleasant things called facts for you.
Even at Brown's funeral, some speakers used the occasion to call for social change, with one of Brown's cousins urging those in attendance to make their voices heard at the polls because "we have had enough of seeing our brothers and sisters killed in the streets."
To put it bluntly, voter turnout for Ferguson township was far from historic.
Of 24,334 registered voters, 10,222 cast ballots in Tuesday's election, a turnout of slightly more than 42%, according to an initial tally.
There wasn't a wave of new voters, either, as only 204 residents registered to vote between August 11, the Monday after Brown was shot, and October 8, the registration deadline for Tuesday's election, said Rita Days, St. Louis County's director of elections. Fifty-six additional residents have registered since October 8, she said.
Of course, 42% is only the initial tally, and the county has two weeks to verify that figure with the state, so the number could rise or drop, Days said. Still, she felt it was a strong turnout.
"This is a very big number considering the last mayoral election, when Mayor (James) Knowles was elected -- that was 16%," Days said.
But comparing municipal to general and midterm election turnouts is apple and oranges, Knowles said in an email. Since 16.2% of voters first put Knowles in office in 2011, voter turnout for the annual city elections has never topped 12%. The 2012 general election, however, lured 76.4% of voters to the polls.
I did get my facts straight
"In 1990, Ferguson, Mo. was a middle class suburban enclave north of St. Louis with a population about three-quarters white. In 2000, the town’s population was roughly split between black and white with an unemployment rate of 5%. By 2010, the population was two-thirds black,"
There was an election with Obama on the ticket, in 2012, when local officials were up for re-election. So before criticizing other people's facts do some fact checking yourself.
I am the father of 3 multi-racial children and I warn them not to expect to be treated equally by the police. I do this for their own protection. The Treyvon Martin case and Jordan Davis case really tore me up inside, because I believe they were vicitimized by people with racial issues.
Ferguson is a different story, however. Why doesn't Ferguson have a police force that is represenative of its population? The only answer is that the inhabitants of that town did not vote locally in large numbers. If that is the case, then they are partly responsible for the appointment of a police chief so ill equiped to deal with a diverse population.
Mark Brown is not a very good poster child for civil rights either. I am no way justifiying murder if that what it was, but he was a bully when he strong armed those cigars from the owner of the convenience store. I agree that the police badly handled this situation but one thing I did notice was the marks on the officer's neck, which means someone must have grabbed him (or he faked it). If you grab a police office hard enough to leave a mark, then expect to get shot white, black or green.
I am not a big fan of the US judicial system because it is a two tiered system, but this case is not a good example of that.
While you make some valid points, you missed some. Typically, Europeans spend far less money/per capita on defense than the US does. When they do contribute troops to international endeavors they tend to be non-combat units. They are somewhat shirking their responsibility and living under the shadow of the US defense umbrella, and when a country really does violate the norms of international behavior(e.g. Russia) they give a very tepid response.
US workforce, in spite of all its disadvantages, is much more flexible than the Europeans. As a result US corporates are more nimble when adjusting to the economic environment. The US economy has easily outperformed virtually all European countries over the last five years.
As far as treatment of the elderly, I am glad I don't live in Europe. Good luck on trying to find a job after a mandatory retirement age of 55. You won't get hired no matter what your qualifications.
As far as guns, we are nuts, and people who are so fearful should be seeing a psychologist because they definitely have issues. Those extreme minority, however, don't represent the majority of Americans. The gun nuts are ammo-sexuals and that is all they care about, a pretty pathetic existence but not the majority.
As far as the US medical system, it is probably way more corrupt than most countries of the world. It is ridiculously expensive.
Our news media is awful, dominated by the same no-nothing charlatans on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.
Yes we suffer from exceptionalism but in the land of blind the one eyed handicapped guy is king. There is no altenative. Europe is too weak, China is too amoral, Russia and Brazil are too corrupt, Iran is too insane. So as bad as we are, there is simply no alternative.
I think we underestimate the value of the ghost soldiers. Because they are invisible and invulnerable(you can't kill a dead man) couldn't you use them to fight ISIS.
I have thought about this deal a lot and I do hope it goes through. Yes, I know that Israel probably has about 100 bombs and even if Iran does go for the bomb it should have the right to do so (India, Pakistan, Israel all violated the non-proliferation treaty without much consequences).
There is one big difference, Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. In fact it calls for its annihilation and a referendum of the original inhabitants to decide if the non-original Jews can stay. This is the pronouncement by the former president and, more importantly, the supreme leader. Israel, on the other hand, does not have a policy to annihilate Iran (in Pakistan's and India's case they don't have this policy either) and their potential use would be a last ditch defense. That is the rub, that is the difference, that is why Iran cannot have the bomb and there has to be sufficient safeguards in place so they can't develop one.
If you look just at the numbers, the NRA is probably more responsible for innocent deaths than ISIS.
Back in the 1980s when solar power was still really expensive, we used solar energy to power the remote link to Radio Baha'i. Even at that time solar energy was cheaper than the alternative fuel(diesel). We were 20 miles from the highway and the grid connection, and diesel had to by carried by pickup over dirt roads that became rivers of mud in the rainy season.
There are a lot of places in the world that are in a similar situation and solar is now the only way to provide electricity to these areas. There are also a lot of side benefits to solar rural electrification. Electricity means more services, more industries, and more jobs. When people have more opportunities at home they won't move to the overcrowded cities. Having lived in a rural area in Panama for many years, the quality of life is so much better! Opportunites for people in rural areas might even reverse the population flow.
...
I managed to cut back on fuel oil usage by 25%. I did this by replacing mercury thermostats (these should be illegal because of the mercury and they are incredibly inefficient) with electronic programmable ones. I use space heaters for my bedrooms and just keep the downstairs above 50 degrees at night and 60 degrees during the day. I did this not because of political affiliation but because I save 800 dollars a year.
I am waiting for solar panels to drop some more. If it gets down to a dollar a watt, I will probably invest in something, and replace my fuel oil system with an electric one.
The troops sent to Iraq were issued combat sneakers, so technically there are no boots on the ground.
In the first quote the Qur'an 4 choices are given, the last would be banishment, which given the brutal nature of conflict in the 7th century was probably pretty tolerant in its time.
There seems to be a lot of assassinations of caliphs and imams in early Islam. Here is a list
Umar (2nd caliph) assassinated
Uthman (third caliph) assassinated
Ali (fourth caliph) assassinated
Hassan (2nd imam) assasinated
Husayn (third imam) assasinated
There were many of the 12 imams that were also murdered.
Excellent article!!
coming from a non-Muslim
This is extremely astute on behalf of the Tunisians. The EU is committed to reducing its carbon footprint by a significant amount by 2040. This will dovetail perfectly with that policy.
The news in the US is just one step above state sponsored media because it limits access to critical information and tends to play on their fears.
The CNN network ( or should I call it the charlatan news network) repeats the same stories ad nausea. During the search for Malaysian flight 1370 the coverage was so dominant that I really thought that Anderson Cooper should rename his show to Anderson Cooper 370.
Gun control is a bit puzzling for me because the US is really not that dangerous, I lived in Panama for 20 years and it had a murder rate 5 times the US. Nevertheless, there was only time I even considered buying a gun, after the US invaded and there was no Panamanian police force, but I decided against it. It would probably be better for people to seek therapy for their irrational fears rather than purchasing that extra gun for Christmas.
That is a bit misleading. You are forgetting four things.
1. Cost of water cooling nuclear can be very high especially where water is a scare commodity.
2. Ongoing maintenance, which is much higher for a nuclear plant which is very complex when compared with a solar array.
3. Damages in case of a failure. If you are engaged in risky behavior you are required to buy insurance. This is like buying a house but not buying home owner's insurance. What happens when there is a failure in a solar energy plant? Nothing. What happens when there is a failure in a nuclear plant? Please visit northern Ukraine or Japan for your answer.
4. Where do you store the nuclear waste. We still haven't figured that out in the US. What is the cost of storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years?
Levelized cost of nuclear is 96, for solar it is 130. Given its advantages I would prefer to pay the the 130
I do get a chuckle about politicians talking about the coal industry in Pennsylvania, though. Pennsylvania has massive amounts of it and most of us have used coal stoves to lower heating costs during the winter. It is incredibly dirty.
Here in PA we have had two environment catastrophes, Three mile Island is pretty well known but Centralia is not, a coal vein caught fire in the 60s and it is still burning. On the other side of the valley from Centralia is Ashland, a product of strip mining, so stark, it looks like it came straight out of the Great Gatsby.
I will be thrilled to see a significant conversion to renewables , hydro, solar, and wind.
I have worked with solar energy since the 80s (in Panama). Back in those days we used it to power a Baha'i rural development project. Diesel was simply too expensive and difficult to use. The twenty mile trek from the highway was impassible during the raining season. It was expensive though.
Since that time prices have dropped a lot. It is approaching grid parity and even in Pennsylvania where I currently live, my friends and I have talked about it, solely from a business perspective. When it reaches a pay back period of 5 years without tax credits, then there will be a seismic shift in electrical generation. On a personal and business level I could give a hoot about where the panels come from, whether from the US or China or Iran. I don't care.
So you spend 300 billion dollars to manufacture medical isotopes that you could buy on the international market for a couple of million. Doesn't sound like much of a business deal.
Or if they prefer I can take them of a tour of Three Mile River near my house, where we were so close to a nuclear meltdown.
Farhang,
I kind of understand your point. Pride causes all countries to pursue non-practical policies. Hopefully, the Iranian leaders are wise enough to pursue a more practical and better approach to electrification, like Germany has (it mothballed its nuclear reactors). Honestly, though, I don't believe they will and probably will develop a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia will probably pursue on then because a fear of Iranian hegemony. Then we will be facing an India/Pakistan type of situation.
As my grandmother used to say, just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something.
Saudi Arabia is a bit of a laggard as well, in spite of achieving grid parity of solar
"Grid parity (or socket parity) occurs when an alternative energy source can generate electricity at a levelized cost (LCoE) that is less than or equal to the price of purchasing power from the electricity grid. The term is most commonly used when discussing renewable energy sources, notably solar power and wind power."
They still generate 40% of their power from diesel ( what a waste!). They sound like a candidate for the nuclear club as well.
Saf,
Regarding renewable energy, you are incorrect. Solar would seem the most attractive alternative, given the number of days of sunlight. Notwithstanding, from the period 2005-2011, Iran's solar energy grew only 25% while the rest of the world grew at 2000%. If you look at a map of solar energy production Iran remains one of the world's renewable laggards (behind Europe, Africa,China, India and North America.
Furthermore, Iran flares off 10% of its natural gas production which could provide 100% of Iran's electricity, eliminating the need for diesel generation(40% or Iran's electrical generation), which is an incredible waste of a valuable commodity. The switch to natural gas would reduce Iran's carbon footprint by 10% and eliminate other pollutants(from burning diesel).
It really isn't an embrace of the Shia crescent. The American public will never accept that. I think the current US administration is looking for a foreign policy legacy, something like Richard Nixon's China legacy. Unfortunately, the president has suffered a lot of foreign policy reverses. He needs this agreement with Iran to work to leave something positive behind. In the long run, however, it probably isn't good for the US, Israel, the predominantly Sunni countries in the Middle East, nor Iran itself. It is a lose lose lose situation for everyone and will only trigger an arms race in a very unstable part of the world.
Currently, Iran flares(burns off) 10% of its natural gas and uses 15% of its production to inject into oil fields. That is a loss of 25%. Furthermore, 40% of Iran's electrical generation is through burning oil, an incredible waste of money. Just by converting all electric generation to natural gas Iran could save its more precious commodity, oil for the future. It has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the world. That is surely enough to bridge the gap until solar or some other energy source becomes cost effective.
It is intriguing why Iran invests so much effort into an energy source that is being abandoned by the rest of the world. In Iran's case, the disadvantages are:
Consumption of a valuable resource, water, for cooling the core.
It is expensive and not very scalable.
Where do you store the waste (the US still hasn't been able to address this issue)
Iran is prone to earthquakes, which makes it a terrible place to build a reactor.
There is no advantage to pursuing nuclear energy in Iran's case unless your intention is to build the bomb.
From the year 2005 to 2011 world solar energy production has increased by 2000%. During the same time period, Iran's solar energy production only increased by 25%, in spite of the following advantages:
"Iran's unique geographical position means 90% of the country has enough sun to generate solar power 300 days a year. According to PressTV Iran has 520 watts per hour per square meter of solar radiation every day.[54] Other sources give an average of 2,200 kilowatt-hour solar radiation per square meter."
And yet they waste billions of dollars on their nuclear technology program on an outdated technology, that most of the rest of the world is discarding.
Here is in interesting article about solar energy on the West Bank
http://www.jpost.com/International/International-support-for-W-Bank-solar-industry-could-fuel-Palestinian-energy-independence-379016
This could make Palestine completely energy independent.
The Israelis have also developed a way to keep solar plants running at night.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-israeli-firm-looks-to-keep-solar-power-generators-running-at-night-2014-9
I have always wondered why Iran is so adamant about its nuclear program. It seems they are betting on old technology when they clearly have other options.
Nuclear reactors require a lot of water for cooling, something that is in short supply in the Middle East. I live next to a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, and as wet as it is here, the Schuykill River is not enough. We have to pump water from abandoned coal mines and reservoirs, as well as the Delaware River 50 miles away. I know the Iranians plan on using sea water because of its location (Bushir) but that has problems as well.
"Using salt water to cool the reactor is a "Hail Mary" move. As the water reaches high temperatures in the core salt will precipitate and stick to the hot surfaces. Before long the pipes will get internally coated with solid salt deposits and the flow will be restricted then cut off altogether. You can imagine the rest. "
With so many days of sunlight and the cost of solar panels plummeting, it would seem that solar energy would be the correct choice. It would also allow the electrification of villages far from the grid.
Or if they are intent on nuclear energy, what about a thorium core nuclear reactor? Thorium is more plentiful and much harder to weaponize than current nuclear reactors. In the late 60s the US developed a working prototype for one. In spite of its economic advantages it was rejected by Oakridge for the following reason:
"The reasons were that uranium breeder reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons."
This was our rationale for rejecting the more reliable and safer Thorium design. It is probably Iran's as well.
Azeem,
Good points. As I remember there were issues with the disenfranchised Shiite populations in the Gulf States during the Arab Spring.
At any rate, majority governments have to make a special efforts to bring in minorities. If you have a couple of more or less equal candidates for a job the minority should get it.
This makes sense not only from a political point of view but also a psychological one. Different frames of reference are invaluable when making policy decisions.
The problem with the liberal view of the US being the source of all evil in the world is that it ignores the homegrown evil in the rest of the world and gives it a free pass. If you abide by the "Marquess of Queensberry rules" in a street fight you get the shit kicked out of you. An example would be the border tribal Pakistani groups that have been crossing over the Afghani border murdering and terrorizing innocent civilians. They would do that with or without the drone attacks. Or the fact that Ossam Bin Liden was living in the open a few miles from Pakistan's West Point.
Truth is every country has its negative element. We have our Sarah Palins but Russia has its Alex Duggins or Iran has its Khameinis. I know perfectly well my country's shortcomings:
It's two tiered judicial system
It's irrational need for firearms to face a mostly fictitious fear
It's unilateralism that prevents it from even supporting benign institutions such as the international criminal court.
It's vaunted medical system that is by far the most expensive in the world.
Even if we could correct these ills overnight those evils abroad would still be alive and kicking.
Wouldn't a contraction of oil supplies be a boon to the renewable energy industry? A move to non-fossil fuels would provide greater economic security than domestic oil production, which will inevitably decrease after 2025.
Only one word comes to mind for this type of behavior, INSANITY. Sometimes it is better to have no religion at all.
Actually, south east Asia turned out pretty good as well.
But getting back to the Middle East, there are homegrown movements that promote religious tolerance. The Iranian cleric, ayatollah hamid masoumi tehrani, comes to mind, who courageously stated regarding the Baha'i community of Iran, "symbolic action to serve as a reminder of the importance of valuing human beings, of peaceful coexistence, of cooperation and mutual support, and avoidance of hatred, enmity and blind religious prejudice."
Also, the recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Malala. These are the people we should be looking to.
If we justify the actions of the extreme fundamentalists, on the other hand, we are enabling the worst sort. The violence will never end. Those fundamentalists have built their belief edifice on a whole slew of misconceptions and false traditions. They have no place in the modern world. Take for instance their view on apostasy and capital punishment. If you really look at the Koran it only touches on it about maybe 3 times, and nowhere does it recommend the death penalty.
During the 60s there were two main movements among the African Americans, one led by Dr. King, the other by the Black Panthers. Dr. King advocated non-violence, the Black Panthers violence. Who had the most lasting impact on our society?
It sounds like you have never served in the Armed Services. Powell's speech was not craven because it was done out of duty not for self serving interests. I was against the Iraq War well before it was a twinkle in Dick Cheney's eye. It actually made me physically ill. Nevertheless, I always have and always will respect Colin Powell have because I understand the reasons.
Probably not many, but the poll numbers are indicative of attitudes and attitudes drive social behavior.
It seems like an anachronism in this day and age, although, I could see it as an act of treason in the early days of Islam, when their numbers were few and they were surrounded on all sides by hostile forces.
Now it seems to me like an ego thing, "how dare someone leave my religion". If your faith is really strong, it really shouldn't matter if people enter or leave your religion, it is between you and God.
It will be interesting to see the reaction to Malala's winning of the Nobel Prize in her home country of Pakistan
With regard to the death penalty for apostates, this is a good bell weather for other civil liberties. Turkey is a good example because it is secular state and relatively liberal. Even so, according to a recent poll, 5% of Muslims there favor the death penalty for apostates. This is the best case scenario.
Here are some more countries that favor the death penalty for apostates
Afghanistan >70
Pakistain > 60
Egypt > 60
Palestine 60
Malaysia > 50
Iraq 40
Benglandesh 37
If you took the same poll here in the US among Christians, it probably would be minuscule.
I am not going to defend the US actions because I am not representing their view point and I disagree with many actions they have taken in the past (e.g. invasion of Iraq, opposition to the ICC).
I don't know if this is true but I found this in wikipedia:
According to one female journalist; “If the Quran does not address the subject, then the clerics will err on the side of caution and make it haram (forbidden). The driving ban for women is the best example.”[14] Another (Sabria Jawhar) believes that “if all women were given the rights the Quran guarantees us, and not be supplanted by tribal customs, then the issue of whether Saudi women have equal rights would be reduced.
Limiting the rights of women also seems to go against the very spirit of Islam(also from wikipedia).
His first wife, Khadijah, was a powerful businesswoman who employed him and then initiated the marriage proposal on her own.[20] Another wife, Aisha commanded an army at the Battle of Bassorah and is the source of many hadiths.[21][22] Muhammad ended female infanticide and established the first rights for women in Arab culture. He reportedly told Muslim men, "You have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you."[23]
Hate to prick a hole in your support of your dictator theory but during the cold war both the US and the USSR supported dictatorial regimes in Africa and Latin America. The US was far more involved in Latin American politics than probably anywhere else. Nevertheless, these countries evolved into democracies without the terrorism that plagues the Middle East. The example I know best is Panama(I lived 20 years). The Panamanians peacefully and patiently negotiated the transfer of the Panama Canal for 15 years with virtually no violence until they obtained their objective. The Panama Canal issue was not just a Panamanian issue but a sore point for all Latin Americans. Nevertheless, few acts of terrorism against civilians were committed.
As far as the US supporting dictators, I have personal experience with that as well. Dictators become entrenched locally way before they are recognized internationally. Once they are entrenched, the only way to do business in that country is to go through a dictator.
Another example you should look at is India. Was there any country in Asia more abused by the European powers that that? It took India hundreds of years to gain independence with very few acts of terrorism. Today they are one of Asia's rising stars.
What is the difference you might ask? It is the concept and the mis-application of Jihad. Originally it was meant to create a society where people could choose their religion, where Muslims could practice their faith without fear of persecution. Unfortunately, it has evolved into the cornerstone of many Islamic fundamentalist belief systems. In this day and age it is completely unnecessary because most of the world (with the exception of the Middle East) guarantees religious freedom.
RJ,
Any oppression of minorities is abhorrent. The critical question, however, is the degree of risk, which is increased in direct proportion to the percentage of people that hold anti-social views. An example would be North America. I am sure that African Americans suffered discrimination in Canada but it was far more pernicious and violent in the United States, hence the risk toward African Americans in the US was far greater.
There is no guarantee that acts of violence will not be committed in any country in the world. In the US, however, there are legal mechanisms to put perpetrators in jail, a long time, especially if these crimes are considered hate crimes.
In countries like Iran there is no such mechanism and much of the violence against minorities such as the Baha'is is institutionalized and sanctioned by the state. In the US Muslims have legal recourse, in Iran the Baha'is have none. That is the difference.
As far as flag burning that is a different can of worms because that is an active political statement. This is different than the persecution of law abiding minorities who simply want to get on with their lives. Their crime is because of their beliefs not because of their acts.
"A more likely comparison is between Israel and ISIS. " Interesting premise. Let's test it out. First go to Tel Aviv and tell 100 random people that you are Christian and have no intention of converting to Judaism.
Then go to Mosul but instead tell the people that you have no intention of convert to Islam.
Probably a better use of time would be to organize people to help insulate older houses. I was able to reduce my fuel oil consumption by 30%. I really didn't do it because of global warming. I did because it saved me 900 dollars per year.
Why does the US have to do anything? ISIS is the day of reckoning for those dysfunctional Middle Eastern states.
1. For Syria which could have allowed moderate reform without violence years.
2. For Iraq that blindly chose the sectarian road, worst traveled.
3. For Turkey that took a sharp turn toward fundamentalism.
4. For Iran, which spent so much time persecuting religious minorities, now they get a taste of what they have been dishing out and can no longer even travel to Syria again.
5. For Russia, a reminder of the cost of supporting Assad, and the price of its expansionist policies.
6. For Europeans who don't want to do any lifting concerning their own defense.
7. For China, whose flow of oil might be imperiled, because of a completely AMORAL view of life.
So why do we have to anything for the above 7? Just concentrate on energy independence and alternate energy.
Here we go again. Ukraine has a no right to its own sovereignty because it is in Russia's imaginary back yard. Next you will be calling it "The Ukraine".
Urkraine is an independent country, with its own language and its own culture. As a sovereign state it has every right to establish its own destiny.
And your history is way way off. First, there is only one Russian federation(singular not plural). Ukraine has never been a part of this federation.
Yes, it was part of tsarist Russia a 100 years ago, but it was also part of Poland and, at another time, part of Lithuania. 800 years ago it was also an independent state.
"During the 10th and 11th centuries, it became the largest and most powerful state in Europe.[31] In the following centuries, it laid the foundation for the national identity of Ukrainians and Russians.[32] Kiev, the capital of modern Ukraine, became the most important city of the Rus'."
Nato expanded because the eastern European countries desperately wanted to join out of fear of Russian domination. After looking at Ukraine the past couple of months, can you really blame their anxiety.
Russia is the only country in the world that seems to require a buffer. If I were to say we need to dominate the Mexican government so we can have a buffer between Honduras and us, you would think I was a lunatic. Yes, it is true that Napolean and Hitler did invade Russia, that was over 60 years ago. There is no European threat to Russia. In fact there is not threat to Russia at all.
And we always talk about Ukraine being a buffer as if the feelings of those people don't matter at all. They have a right to a better future and they chose that future during the Madden protests. That was a widespread movement, supported by the people not foreign powers.
If you look at the economic growth of those Eastern European countries that broke free of Russian influence, they are prospering. Ukraine is not, however, and it will never have a decent future unless it liberates itself from Russia.
They have a right to join NATO if they so choose. They have a right to join the European Union if they choose. They have the right to join the Russian custom's union if they choose. It is their choice, not Russia's not the USA's.
Vladimir Putin's foreign policy is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's advance into Sudetenland. In that time Hitler, was interested in protecting ethnic Germans, or so he said. He sent over Nazi thugs and then when the Czech government resisted he took over some of the country, then he took over the non-German part.
Any by the way the oligarchic rule you mentioned, all with the of Yushchenko and the current president Poroshenko were all ethnic Russians who had a cozy relationship with Russia.
And another fact you might consider, that even in eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians is 60%. Another fact you might consider that although the Ukrainian government is responsible for some civilian deaths in eastern Ukraine, the overwhelming number of kidnappings, torture, and murder of civilians is done by the pro-Russian terrorists.
So when you call you senator an idiot you should check your mirror first.
FIrst, the sphere of influence claim doesn't justify the gross violation perpetrated by Russian. When 100000 Russian troops cross over the eastern border and take another chunk of Ukraine are you going to put forth the same argument? Why not take whole country then and Moldavia with it.
Romney understood completely Putin ( I campaigned and voted for Obama). He suffers from the same alpha male syndrome , much greater than George Bush. He despises weakness, saw an opening and took it. He will not stop at Crimea.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/move-the-2018-world-cup