|
 |
|
 |
|
PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama, Armenians and genocide
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:05:07 -0400, "Xtes-00k" <...@optonline.net
PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama, Armenians and genocide
Published: 4/24/09, 4:46 PM EDT
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama was unequivocal during the campaign: As president, he would recognize the nearly century-old massacre of Armenians in Turkey as genocide.
In breaking that promise Friday, the president did the same diplomatic tiptoeing he criticized the Bush administration for doing.
Like George W. Bush before him, Obama did not want to alienate vital ally Turkey by declaring the slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians to be genocide - especially with Turkey and Armenia now exploring reconciliation.
Instead, he said he had not changed his view from the campaign, even as he declined to state it, and added: "My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
In a statement on the anniversary of the start of the killings in 1915 - a day when U.S. presidents typically honor the Armenian victims - Obama said: "Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire."
The statement was less than the full and frank acknowledgment he promised Jan. 19, 2008, when he vowed that as president, "I will recognize the Armenian Genocide," and repeatedly used the word.
An excerpt from that 2008 campaign statement, one of several he released on the subject:
"I also share with Armenian Americans - so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.
"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary (Condoleezza) Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.
"As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
Scholars widely consider the events of 1915 to be the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey contends the death toll was inflated and resulted from civil war and unrest, not genocide.
Ken Hachikian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, said Obama's statement Friday "represents a retreat from his pledge and a setback to the vital change he promised to bring about in how America confronts the crime of genocide."
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"<HTML<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1253"<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5764" name=GENERATOR<STYLE</HEAD<BODY bgColor=#ffffff<DIV<H1<H5Barack Obama was unequivocal during the campaign: As president, he would
recognize the nearly century-old massacre of Armenians in Turkey as genocide.
<Ptiptoeing he criticized the Bush administration for doing.
<PTurkey by declaring the slaughter of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians to be
genocide - especially with Turkey and Armenia now exploring reconciliation.
<Phe declined to state it, and added: "My interest remains the achievement of a
full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."
<P<Pday when U.S. presidents typically honor the Armenian victims - Obama said:
"Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently
massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire."
</P<PJan. 19, 2008, when he vowed that as president, "I will recognize the Armenian
Genocide," and repeatedly used the word.
<Pon the subject:
<Pfrom genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending
genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in
world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American
community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.
<PU.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term
'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in
1915. I shared with Secretary (Condoleezza) Rice my firmly held conviction that
the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of
view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of
historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on
diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.
<PResolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the
Armenian Genocide."
<Pthe 20th century. Turkey contends the death toll was inflated and resulted from
civil war and unrest, not genocide.
<Psaid Obama's statement Friday "represents a retreat from his pledge and a
setback to the vital change he promised to bring about in how America confronts
the crime of genocide."</DIV
|
| |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:51:16 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
Watch the Alex Jones film. Obama broke every single one of the promises
he made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:45:06 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 24, 3:51 pm, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
The Alex Jones film is silly. The techniques utilized are utilized by
every campaign, by Hollywood and by every public relations firm.
Obama, who really regards Turkey was a vital component of the US
policy in the Middle East would not have been predisposed to offend
the Turks about such an issue as the Armenian genocide. Let's get
real here. Obama is just a typical politician, a bit more
sophisticated than most but a politico nevertheless. Who really
expects a politican to keep promises???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:46:01 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
I once checked 4 of Alex Jones claims because I was thinking it was BS.
He was right on all 4 accounts.
You might dislike a person but facts are facts and those can be checked
most of the time.
The UK is the Trojan horse for the EU as is Turkey.
It's all about the Anglo American hegemony over this planet and it's
resources under British US control.
> expects a politican to keep promises???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:36:30 -0700, "Spirit of Truth" <...@prodigy.net
"ADR" <...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 3:51 pm, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
The Alex Jones film is silly. The techniques utilized are utilized by
every campaign, by Hollywood and by every public relations firm.
Obama, who really regards Turkey was a vital component of the US
policy in the Middle East would not have been predisposed to offend
the Turks about such an issue as the Armenian genocide. Let's get
real here. Obama is just a typical politician, a bit more
sophisticated than most but a politico nevertheless. Who really
expects a politican to keep promises???
................................................................................ .............
................................................................................ .............
Nonsense, tasso.
I told you to think before posting. Obama was supposed
to be different. He has betrayed the USA.
Spirit of Truth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:44:04 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "ADR" <...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
The film may be silly (or maybe not) but fact is that Obama has broken many
of his pre-electoral promises, the last one being the recognition of the
Armanian Genocide which was broken just yesterday...
Not that we are not use to such behavior by presidential candidates, in the
US and elswhere...
LOL
And he managed to make both Armenians and Turks angry with his yesterday
statements:-)))
I just said it: nobody!
But we have the right to "punish" him in the next elections.
And vote for the Republican candidate who will give us promises which will
be broken again after he's elected and so on, and so on...
That's politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:37:08 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
The reason why many don't vote. I voted blank.
In Finland ALL parties voted on a new law by which from 2011 on every
Finnish household regardless of size ( 1-10 people )would have to pay
175 Euro annually for TV regardless if he has a TV or computer or mobile
phone. As I always have been saying. All parties are but one party.
The pro establishment party. The differences are to small to call them
more then one party. They make more noise when they are in the
opposition but otherwise...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 25, 7:37 am, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
This has been on the books in the UK and in Greece for decades.
Finland is catching up. If a country wants a public TV, then it needs
to pay for it. Otherwise, this country can surrender the airwaves to
private companies and let it go from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:08:56 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
People do pay for it but there are people who don't have or want a TV
Then there are those advertisement supported channels.
Not everybody has a TV or wants a TV.
I gave my TV away on February 2008.
Forcing people for something they neither won't nor able to get is
acting like the mafia. Why not forcing everybody to pay car taxes even
if they don't have a car? Most people have a car so it's his fault if he
don't has a car.
The government should switch to pay per view like the Disney channel and
others.
BBC world is free but there are some BBC channels that costs.
> private companies and let it go from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 25, 1:08 pm, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
I think that there is a lot of value to public TV and people should
pay irrespective if they own or do not own TVs. This is a silly
argument. What you are saying is that if you do not have kids in
school, you do not have to pay the part of the tax that goes to the
support of schools and if you do not have a car you should not pay for
the part of the tax that helps maintain the roads. This is just
goofy. Even if you do not have a TV, the independent investigative
reporting of public TV and radio can benefit you in many ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:14:29 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
There is no direct school tax.
The gas tax is used directly to build and repair roads.
The pavement is not being paid by that tax.
State TV is not independent. I have more independent news watching the
advertisement sponsored channels then the states 5 TV channels.
They should slim down to 2 channels. One free sponsored partly through
advertisement and one pay per view like the BBC has it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:54:24 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
Property taxes collected from homeowners are usually the taxes that go
towards paying for school (primary and secondary education). If I don't
live in a particular city and don't own a home there, I am not paying
taxes for that particular district. On the other hand, some of my taxes
go towards the school system all over this land but the money needed to
run the schools is collected from the people that live in the respective
school district.
This is just
Which is why we pay income taxes. So according to your logic, we should
pay an extra toll or tax on everything because it "benefits" us
indirectly. And I prefer the investigative reporting of the private
channels. It's much more in depth and better funded. In fact, there is
more of a chance that "public" TV will feed me government propaganda
than private TV networks.
Oh, and we all pay for TV when we're watching. It's called :"commercial
advertising."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:53:57 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
I pay for my TV through my income and consumption taxes. I also have a
choice of what I want to see, as in which packages I want to subscribe to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:55:53 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "Nashton" <...@na.ca
Exactly!
So Nicolas you are not paying an extra tax for it!
Now if the "stupid" Canadian government is not forcing the non-TV owners to
pay such a TV tax, I wonder why the "smart" (ass...) Greek state should do
that?!...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:10:31 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
Because Greece is so deep in their recession that they'll do anything to
generate revenue. Canadians tend to be a tad more practical than that.
Don't forget that we have publically funded universal health care here,
so paying for a stupid tax on TV whilst people are on month long waiting
lists to see specialists, would be an affront.
This notion of paying for a service one doesn't use is the most
ridiculous thing I've ever heard and is typical of lefty double-speak
and tax and spend fiscal policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:33:20 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "Nashton" <...@na.ca
Well, I am not sure this is the reason.
You see, I remember this tax since I was a...kid and Greece was doing quite
well in the economic field!
The new governments just kept what the older governments did...
So has Greece.
Or by "universal" you mean that "everyone" in Canada is covered, no matter
if he is paying for it?...
Indeed!
Only that the tax was introduced decades ago and by...right wing
governments;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:53:09 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
I don't remember any such tax. And I'm talking middle-late 70s.
Yes. Everybody. Therein lies the crux of the matter. There is no special
"taxation" for health care. It is part of the general provincial and
federal budget and even though many people are under the bracket of
paying taxes (which depends on their province or territory, but is at
around 20000), they still get free health care under the Health Care Act.
Lefties, in the sense that they are all for a nanny state and tend to
belong to the no libertarian part of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:26:13 +0300, "gogu" <...@la_Greci.com
? "Nashton" <...@na.ca
It's quite old, if I am not mistaken it was first imposed by the after-junta
Karamanlis government, maybe in the late '70s...
Quite interesting, thanks for the info!
So people don't have to pay a percentage of their monthly salary to the
state for health care as it is done here in Europe!
Quite an interesting idea I must say!
Well, I am sure that the first two Karamanlis governments after 1974 don't
exactly fit that description;-)
A nice evening to everybody!
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:28:21 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "ADR" <...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Well, it's al matter of "position"...
I am sure you remember Melina Merkoyri (when PASOK was in opposition) who
refused to pay the TV tax coming with the DEH bill, because she said she has
no TV so the tax is unfair...
After PASOK came in the power she regularly paid her bill and never said
anything again about the unfairness of the tax...
Some politicians make me sick...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:04:11 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
Just looked up some 7-8 Finnish blocks.
The great majority is against it.
For a poor student who has no TV to pay 175 Euro a year for a service he
is not using would mean not to able to afford the one meal per day he
has on the University for 3 months.
Finland switched it's TV signal from analog to digital on February 2008
I had an old TV that I then gave away.
Since TV signals are only digital in Finland now they could encrypt the
channels and only those who have the TV card would be able to watch them.
Free channels ( sponsored by advertisement ) would be free.
On political issues those free (non government ) channels are much less
biased. The government channels are for the most part propaganda
channels just like BBC is.
There is a church tax in Finland for those who belong to the church.
I don't. So I don't pay.
What's the price in Greece?
Part of your electricity bill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:18:08 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "Mitsos**" <...@news.motzarella.org...
I am not sure, I'll have to check.
Yep!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:43:42 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 25, 1:28 pm, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
I fully support the fees for public TV and radio. And yes, in Greece
there are part of the electricity bill. And the fact that one does
not have a TV means absolutely nothing. We pay taxes for many
activities that are beneficial to the public although they may not
beneficial to us directly (and I can think of several). In any case,
Mitsos' complaint is a complaint for complaint's sake. He is just
kvetching!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:02:45 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
You need to come off your high horse and realize that many people (as in
the working poor), don't have the luxury to engage in your lofty
discourse of how society can benefit from yet another tax and instead,
are trying to put food on the table for their families. I'm sure that
many of them don't even own a TV.
Charging people money for TV or any other form of entertainment (yes,
there is journalism and investigative reporting, but it's a very small
part of their activities) is simply a tax grab. And the governement has
no business charging for a service that is perfectly self-sustainable
through the revenues generated via private advertising.
Pretty soon, you'll be advocating that people are charged for the usage
of beaches, even if they never use them, because they are beneficial to
society. What utter nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:58:37 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "ADR" <...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
1) I didn't say if I am pro or against! I just pointed out the laughable
behavior of the politicians!
2) There are arguments for both thesis.
3) One of the "against":
- "circulation tax" is paid only by the car owners but we all use the roads!
In your line of logic we all should pay the "circulation tax"! Thank G-d we
don't;-)
Double standards?...
4) What is the situation in England, USA or Canada?
Do all citizens pay the TV/radio tax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:45:52 +0300, Mitsos** <...@isgreek.org
I have relatives in New York.
TV is free but there are plenty of pay per view channels
Finns on different blocks have suggested the following:
The state TV should stop competing with the sports channel.
Bringing sport to the TV is expensive and Finland has 2 sports channels.
One which is sponsored by advertisements and one pay per view.
The other expensive part are expensive documents.
There the Finnish state owned TV could create it's own channel which
could be pay per view ( rather on a monthly base )
and keep one channel free which could support itself through some
advertisement.
Finland has switched to digital TV since February 2008
People can buy and mostly do a card reader and they can view free
channels and if they order and pay for other channels they can watch
those too.
They come usually in a bundle. 4-8 channels
10-30 Euro per bundle if I remember right
Those above you have to subscribe to and pay monthly rates. One of them
is pay per view ( some films cost extra)
A: The state channels for which those who have a TV pay 224 Euro per
year. Group B which most people watch gets no money.
The only one which is something worth is YLE Teema. It brings good
documents. The channel is good and people wouldn't mind to pay for this
channel through a TV card. The other channels are expensive and rubbish.
Hardly anybody looks them but for the news which are not unbiased
because they bring the governments view.
The advertisement sponsored channels people look mostly. They get no
money from the 224 Euro people pay per year.
3 free independent ( non state owned ) TV channels.
Urheilukanava is the free and advertisement sponsored sports channel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:06:41 -0300, Nashton <...@na.ca
In Canada, our government has shown tremendous fiscal restraint ind have
been very successful in limiting the effects of the latest recession.
There is *no* TV Tax here and part of the budget is allocated towards
funding of the CBC (Radio Canada). There is no such thing as a TV tax in
the US either.
I cannot imagine that any Canadian would go for this nonsense of a TV
tax and politicians here know this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:28:14 +0300, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
? "Nashton" <...@na.ca
Thanks for the info!
I knew that but it was a rhetoric question to ADR, just to show him that if
in other countries there is no such a tax, why it should be in Greece?;-)
There is no such a tax in Germany, not sure about France.
Instead there was such a tax in Italy when I was residing there, not sure if
it still exists...
True.
Then how ADR living in such a country can be for such a "stupid" idea?...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:14:36 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 26, 4:28 am, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
In every country there is a patchwork of taxes and things cannot be
easily compared. However, for countries that do have public TV and
Radio, the monies to run these stations are provided by taxes. So. if
you call a tax "TV tax" or if the funds are obtained from general
taxation, it hardly matters. If you want to be specific about its
country, the relevant measures should be services provided for a
specific tax burden. Countries that provide a lot of services for a
small tax burden are doing everything well. Countries that provide
few services for a high tax burden have a problem.
In fact, in the US, especially if one lives in a high tax state
(California, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey), the level of
taxation is quite high even by European standards but services are not
as comprehensive as those in Europe.
Measuring a tax one had to define what is the overall benefit of a
given tax to the society as a whole (not just to one's self) versus
the cost. My guess is that public TV is providing a service that is
very beneficial to the society overall and a tax for it would be
appropriate as long as such a tax is not highly aggressive and results
in a bloated organization. An TV/radio setup independent of corporate
and financial pressures is a necessity in a modern society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:13:14 +0300, "gogu" <...@la_Greci.com
? "ADR" <...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 4:28 am, "gogu" <...@Greci.com
I am sorry to disagree but it does matter!
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:18:49 -0700 (PDT), ADR <...@yahoo.com
On Apr 27, 3:13 pm, "gogu" <...@la_Greci.com
If you had anything substantive to say I would have commented but
unless you are ready to back up your thesis, there is nothing more to
say
|
|
|
|
|
|
|