walksalone Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 wikipedia = grain of salt ONLY if it's it's not sourced. If it's sourced you then look at that particular source. It's as simple as that. as previously stated, grain of salt Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm with Cactus on Wikipedia. I don't typically link to Wikipedia (although I have) but if you do, and you have questions about it, all you have to do is check the source material for verification. If you don't believe the source that's another thing entirely, but Wikipedia isn't a terrible place to start regardless of whether you and I can edit it. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm with Cactus on Wikipedia. I don't typically link to Wikipedia (although I have) but if you do, and you have questions about it, all you have to do is check the source material for verification. If you don't believe the source that's another thing entirely, but Wikipedia isn't a terrible place to start regardless of whether you and I can edit it. Exactly...like you pointed out a source from one of my paste jobs from wiki may be biased...so then I found another source. Maybe this will get through to walks now that too said it. Wiki is an excellent resource if used correctly. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm with Cactus on Wikipedia. I don't typically link to Wikipedia (although I have) but if you do, and you have questions about it, all you have to do is check the source material for verification. If you don't believe the source that's another thing entirely, but Wikipedia isn't a terrible place to start regardless of whether you and I can edit it. Exactly...like you pointed out a source from one of my paste jobs from wiki may be biased...so then I found another source. Maybe this will get through to walks now that too said it. Wiki is an excellent resource if used correctly. what? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have removed some more posts from this thread. Personal disputes do not belong in the general forums. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 I don't think I've ever read an article from Aljazeera until this one last night. I thought I'd check it out after reading the thread on here about media outlet. Have to say I'm impressed. Way more Americans need to read articles like this so we can have a better informed public. here are some snips. Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war? Does Netanyahu really want a war on Iran, or does he want to prove that no one could stop him if he did? War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Netanyahu will, if the past is any indication, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met with stony silence. From the convention centre, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three "asks" for members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that "containment" of a nuclearised Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the US stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile. A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will inevitably demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu's policy of the moment happens to be. I've sat in on those meetings where the AIPAC "asks" are developed, and it was always clear that the substance didn't matter all that much. The goal of the "asks" is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the "ask" is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven't already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters. All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress should object. Speaking out One member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC "ask". Representative Betty McCollum (Democrat - Minnesota) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all US contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance. , she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a "terrorist supporter" and warned that her behaviour "would not be tolerated". many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics - but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC's arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests "asks", they are, in fact, "tells" - and "no" is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove, which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do.) Despite all this, I do not think that either Netanyahu or his lobby are all that eager to go to war. After all, Israel's intelligence community opposes it for a host of reasons - starting with the fact that it would not eliminate Iran's nuclear programme. There is also the fear that Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, on Israel's northern border, have tens of thousands of missiles that they can let fly if Iran is attacked. Above all is the understanding that no one knows if an attack would make Israel safer or threaten its very existence. read the entire article here http://www.aljazeera...9587120632.html Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? over 70% of americans say no...and I'm one of them. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give... Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give... I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give... I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. Ok well even if Iran was to do that it wouldn't be for years. What everyone is talking about now is if they should strike Iran in the near future...like this year if not sooner w/ no proof they will even make a weapon. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Here's the question, would you support Israel attacking Iran? My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give... I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. Ok well even if Iran was to do that it wouldn't be for years. What everyone is talking about now is if they should strike Iran in the near future...like this year if not sooner w/ no proof they will even make a weapon. That might be what some are talking about but it's not what I'm talking about. Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified? Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need. Judging by Obama's words and actions, he does not agree with you. Link to comment
Recommended Posts