A Perfect Nation?

A correction:

[With all due respect, I think it is all to do with certain desi thinking process that fails to recognize the good points. ]

Re: # 41

{{{America accepts all immigrants with open arms. The second generation gets assimilated very quickly. I like to be corrected on all of my opinions. Thanks.
Nasim }}

You need no correction.......you are speaking the truth....only the truth ..........nothing but the truth......

Re: # 41

Ditto to your observations! I hope that was a pleasant surprise.

Z

Re: # 43
Some people like to write based on their experiences. And everyone does not have similar experiences and opportunities to broaden their horizons. You are in desperate need to grow up and avoid childish outbursts just because someone cared to write a fair analysis on the US.

#42 Echo - See everything has to be read and taken in a certain context. I do not need to defend the writer, but your post is out of context. There are many US foreign policies that are open for debate and dissection. Thanks to the brethren for creating the 9/11 mess and creating issues for the rest of the muslim ummah. Why is it hard to admit and appreciate that the US is the only country where ``legal`` immigrants have done well all across the board ? Checkout the institutions, organizations or corporate sector, you would be amazed to find the number of Asians, Europeans and South asians. I am currently working on a project in financial services and I am taken aback by the number of Indians, Europeans and Hispanics at my client site. Going back to the writer`s point that you forgot to comprehend, the culture in this country does provide immense opportunities for the immigrants to grow both professionally and personally. With all due respect, I think it is all to do with the desi thinking process which can be quite despicable. It`s also something to do with appreciating the values and system of a non-Muslim society that causes pain to some. I do not want to take it any further, but one has to give the devil its due.

i really hope that the writer gets his green card now....

what an effort he has put up here....

The U.S thuGGs are being served Crow again. May they rot sooner & may the world see their imperialism collapse ``live--and as it happens`` just as the USSR did.

---

& this from this Islam-hate site.It is nice to see them talk like this.


Damage Is Done: The Bush administration’s bad Iran move
Filed under: Front Page, USA, Iran
Michael Rubin:

It did not take long for Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to slap down Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s offer of direct talks. “Rice’s comments can be considered a propaganda move,” Ahmadinejad told the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Rice’s announcement that U.S. officials were prepared to both offer the Iranian regime new incentives and sit down with it was a strategic fumble. Not only did Rice provide Ahmadinejad with an opportunity to humiliate the “arrogant power” to his domestic audience, but she also undercut what little international credibility the U.S. retains. …

(See also The Moral Imperative of Freedom in Iran by Kenneth R. Timmerman)

Continue reading…

Cross-posted at Israpundit and netwmd.com

Iran, USA
Posted by Andrew Jaffee @ 7:41 am |

4 Comments »


Perhaps the Bush administration should consider why in the first place did it allow the India nuclear exchange deal to go through, as well as continued funding for Israel’s nuclear programme? The Iranian approach to diplomacy might be chronically capricious, but so is the immistakeable support and unquestioned endorsement of the Israeli position as a non-member of the NPT possessing nuclear capabilities by the United States.

The U.S. has to realise that since it has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons as well as being the most advanced in terms of nuclear research, it has the de facto responsibility of setting an example of non-proliferation for other countries to follow. The problem with U.S. diplomacy, characterised by self-serving interest of late, has been a prevailing culture of double standards. Without a uniform policy front, I don’t think we can blame the Iranian regime for its scepticism and cynical dismissal of negotiations.

That is not to absolve or trivialise the Iranians of any responsibility; far from it. They are just as guilty as the U.S. in backtracking on their promises, surreptitiously advancing their interests under the guise of diplomacy and carrot-and-stick methodology. Having deceived the international community and betrayed the genuine good will of European negotiators of past and present, the Iranians should be blamed, and rightfully so for their innumerable transgressions which have undermined both the credibility of their counterparts in Europe as well as their own negotiators.

Iran promises to suspend nuclear enrichment on the table, yet clandestinely it pursues its agenda with unbridled enthusiasm.
America promises to alleviate the Palestinian crisis, yet blatantly funds Israel with weapons and cash to continue its brutalising and dehumanising of Palestinians with unchecked ambition.

Hypocrisy means the same to everyone, everywhere. Even to Iranians.

Comment by harrison — June 1, 2006 @ 10:05 am

---

harrison,
I have a number grievances with US policies but funding of Israel is not one of them.
It seems you are a little irked by the fact that the US gives support to Israel. I could not help but notice that you begin and end with the issue.
One of the last statements you make is, quote:

America promises to alleviate the Palestinian crisis, yet blatantly funds Israel with weapons and cash to continue its brutalising and dehumanising of Palestinians with unchecked ambition.

Aside from the bad spelling (I’m not too good at that either, but try using “z” in the place of “s” more ) and the statement on America’s promise to “alleviate the Palestinian crisis” (I’m not sure what “promise” you are referring to specifically but often they do come with conditions);
What really is unreasonable about your charge that “[America]… funds Israel with weapons and cash to continue its brutalizing and dehumanizing of Palestinians“, is that Israel does not need anything from the US at all to do anything they wished to the Palestinians. It so happens that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that are determined to see Israel wiped of the map. Israel’s military build up and US support has nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with the neighborhood.

When was the last time Israeli nukes were used in a targeted attack on terrorist leaders? (you seem mostly concerned about Israeli nukes).
We all know that Israeli nukes hopefully are to be used only as a deterrent, or in the worst case scenario as a last resort if their very existence as a nation is in imminent danger.
The more conventional weaponry that Israel has the less likelyhood there will be a war or that they will ever use nuclear weapons. I say give them the best stuff and anything else they need along with the liberty to make it better if they can.

Comment by RandyTexas — June 1, 2006 @ 7:56 pm

---

I do not think I need to apologise for my British spelling, which is exactly the form of English taught in my country, Singapore. So please refrain from calling it ‘bad’.

When was the last time Israeli nukes were used in a targeted attack on terrorist leaders? (you seem mostly concerned about Israeli nukes).

When was the last time any NPT adherents save for the U.S. actually employed the nuclear option at all? You state that “we” all know that Isralei nukes “hopefully” are to be used only as a deterrent, or in the worst case scenario as a last resort ‘if their very existence as a nation is in imminent danger’.

First of all, I don’t really think it is wise to make a sweeping statement in the name of “we”, or us. And ‘hopefully’ doesn’t come across as convincing - let’s hope the U.S. finds WMD in Iraq, let’s hope somehow Iraqis will greet U.S. soldiers with flowers and hugs for ‘liberating’ them. We’re talking about the nuclear option here, and it seems that whenever the deterrent argument is used to justify Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, they will practise restraint; yet when it comes to Iran, the clerics will launch a nuclear war the moment they get hold of the weapons.

It really is ridiculous to say that somehow Israel will ever be in imminent danger of being wiped off the map. Its military troops are well-funded and equipped with modern technological weapons, so any sort of invasion, however unlikely in this era, will be easily dealt with. It has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt to act as deterrents in this case. As for Syria and Lebanon, what has occurred so far is simply sporadic fighting at the border.

Can Israel really survive on its own and attack its neighbours with impunity if the U.S. wasn’t funding and giving it guarantees that the superpower will defend Israel if ever the latter comes under attack? Perhaps you are right, that Israel can easily purchase military weaponry and technology by itself; yet what about the international immunity that the U.S. has bestowed upon them? Why do you think Israel can get away with constant brutalisation of Palestinians (woefully inadequate press coverage on that) and human rights violations? The U.S. provides diplomatic cover for Israel. Why the need for an influential Israeli lobby in America then? I think it would be foolish to overlook U.S. complicity in the Palestine issue.

It is surprising to see that only “terrorists” and those “on the other side” are capable of threatening the existence of nations like the U.S. and Israel. Yet have we ever contemplated that countries like pre-war Iraq and Iran now have also viewed U.S. intervention as tantamount to a direct threat to their nation’s existence? Just because the Arab leaders do not voice out their opposition to the war in Iraq and perhaps in Iran does not give the U.S. justification to interfere in the Middle East, neither does it mean that Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt are less afraid of eventual U.S. intervention than the mullahs in Iran, or Saddam when he was still ruling. Why can’t we grasp the possibility that people consider the U.S. and Israel as threats to their country’s existence?

Comment by harrison — June 1, 2006 @ 9:45 pm

---

[…] Damage Is Done: The Bush administration s bad Iran move IsraPundit, Canada - 14 hours ago It did not take long for Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to slap down Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice s offer of direct talks. […]

Pingback by Watching Iran » Blog Archive » Damage Is Done: The Bush administration s bad Iran move — June 1, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

Re: # 26

Naqshbandi Saheb:

If the criteria of a civilized country is the treatment of its poorest and most vulnerable people then the western Europe is indeed the best place to live. Again I would add a qualification of being the native European. Europe spends great amount on public transportation, health and social welfare. This reduces the pollution and enhances the quality of life. Perhaps that is prime reason for low crime rate as compared to the USA.

My criteria is human equality and basic freedoms. No country in this World provides the equality of opportunity to all of citizens at the level of America.


This opinion is based on personal knowledge of Sweden, Germany, Spain, France and UK. In Sweden the native people are given preference over immigrants from Norway, Denmark and Poland. The South Asian, Middle Eastern, Turkish and African people are not treated fairly in western Europe.

These people do get welfare and health care but not good jobs. I had an opportunity to work for a few months in Europe for ICI. In all Europe ICI had very little representation of immigrant minority. I could hardly find any Indian or Pakistani in ICI. Other countries in Europe have similar conditions. The condition of African immigrants to France is very well known. Even the second and third generation has not assimilated in French society.

When I look around the American companies, universities, colleges and businesses, I find a large number of immigrants in good positions.

America accepts all immigrants with open arms. The Arabs, Turks and South Asians can easily assimilate in the main stream if they like to do so. Generally immigrants from these countries try to preserve their own culture. Some even feel superior to common American people. The second generation gets assimilated very quickly.

I like to be corrected on all of my opinions. Thanks.

Nasim

Re: # 38

Thanks. All of us look at things from our unique perspective. A writer must try to present a balanced point of view. This is a very difficult thing indeed.

I still believe in the basic decency of human beings. I interact with American people and majority of them believe in the idea of fairness.

The US is not a Perfect Nation by any stretch of imagination. It certainly has the potential to become one. Nasim

aslam--that`s the greatness of the UK!

Netizen: there has been no Commie threat since the early 1990s--15 years now. The idea of free healthcare, free education et al. --ie. socialist medicine--is deeply entrenched in our mindset. no politician could even dream of saying they`d want a totally privatised insurance based health system and hope to be elected. even the right-wing Tories and even the ultra-right fascist BNP would not dare have that as one of their political targets.

A fair analysis!

Not only that, an optimistic write-up.

``Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness``

It is the pursuit of happiness that made many of us land on this soil. I guess it is great to have a purpose in life :)

(there is no point in spilling any more american blood for those uncivilized ingrates)

The ingrates did not invite them in the first place

Regards

Re: # 35

SR .......

....... i hope the republicans win again, but regardless of who wins i think we should now redploy our troops to free kurdistan and let the homicidal sunnis and the suicidal shias sort out their own mess ........ there is no point in spilling any more american blood for those uncivilized ingrates ........

.......... as far as the ``military-industrial`` complex is concerned, i think it is just fine - the military pays its bills on time, underwrites a lot of r&d that is used for commercial purposes, and the complex employs hundreds of thousands of middle class americans ........ heck, even kellog and general food are part of this complex since they supply breakfast cereal and mre`s to the military ! ......... and, of course, we cannot afford to be complacent about china even though they are not as big a threat as political islam, yet ........ 400m, or even a trillion, is a small price to pay for freedom ........

Re: # 12 hamidm2 {``....... the american `system` will always bring the pendulum back to the middle .......``}

Pendulums sometimes get stuck if they are swung too vigorously.

In America today we have a difficult political situation. The nation doesn`t like any more what this President is doing. They don`t like the war in particular, and I think they`ll like this expensive war ($10 billion a month) even less as time goes by.

If the Dems win Congress in the fall, the government will be stalemated. The Dems have no policy. Their only policy will be to try to reverse everything Bush stands for. Nothing will be accomplished. If the clueless Dems win the House they`ll be blamed along with the Republicans for everything that goes wrong. The Dems, in my mind, could win by losing the Fall elections. The Dems would be better off letting the Republicans control Congress.

The US possesses, in Eisenhower`s words, a giant military-industrial complex. That complex needs to be fed. The latest is that the Pentagon is worried by the big military build-up in China. The brass at the Pentagon is saying that the Chinese military build-up is upsetting the status quo in Asia. It`s a threat to Taiwan, to Japan, to the rest of Asia. My answer is ``What did the Pentagon expect?`` The US`s new policy of ``preemption`` scares every nation that isn`t in the US camp. And of course China wants to be the power in Asia. That certainly shouldn`t surprise anyone.

The US needs an enemy to justify its enormous military spending. I believe the Pentagon has found the enemy they need in China. The view of China as a potential enemy allows the US to spend almost any amount on its military. God only knows what is spent now. The expenses of the Iraq war are ``off budget.`` NASA isn`t on the military budget. I don`t know what the real size of the total US military budget is, but I`m guessing that all things considered it`s at least three-quarters of a trillion dollars. (The official $400 Billion, bad enough though even that is, I doubt if it gives the full picture.)

How will all this be paid for? It will be paid for with paper, more and more vigorously printed paper, better known as dollars. Yet, my good buddy, zeemax, fortified with Muree brewrey ale, come out and claims that the US dollar has only lost 3% of its value since the mid-1980s...

(Check out this cost-of-living calculator brother zeemax, and while you are doing your research check out this PUBLICATION also. There`s tons more but it might tax your masters` ideological leanings.)

...No one questions such fantasies and the Chowk choir keeps singing the hymms of the great American prosperity

Yeah, I`ll hold my gold. Let the price of gold in paper junk go where it will. I`m sitting tight with gold.

...SR