|
|
|
Apologies to Gen. Patreaus yes Geoff is correct Bremer was head of the CPA when the orders were drafted.
But the authority for the hundred orders was transfered to US puppet Allawi. As far as I can find out they have not been rescinded.
Any mercs been prosecuted in Iraq recently Geoff? Or ever?
#102
Most of them were automatically rescinded with the dissolution of the CPA. Of the others, if they haven't been rescinded it's because the democratically elected Iraqi government hasn't wanted to do so. That's what democracy is all about.But the authority for the hundred orders was transfered to US puppet Allawi. As far as I can find out they have not been rescinded.
In any case, since the information you had about Order 81 was completely wrong, your whole argument about it is irrelevant.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
Whetever dude, it wasn't completely wrong. The order existed and as far as I know it still exists. Corporations can still remit all profits with 0% tax rate and XE mercs are still immune from prosecution. I'm sure it's all very democratic.
Anyway enjoy the war Geoff. Try not to get shot.
#104
You are either really getting confused or you're just making things up as you go along now. There was nothing in Order 81 about tax rates or immunity from prosecution. You claimed it mandated that Iraqi farmers must buy only Monsanto seed, which is utter bullshit.
And you are splitting hairs. Its clear I am reffereing to other orders when I mention the remittance issue and corporate staff immunity.
But yes there were a few other GMO firms they were allowed to purchase suicide seeds from. Did you read the link I posted? I regret I couldn't read your links cos of an error with my Adobe reader.
#106
Yes I read the link you posted. It was complete bullshit, as shown by the documents I linked, which were the details of the CPA transitional arrangements, and included the full text of Order 81. Since you couldn't read it, I'll say it again, Order 81 did NOT mandate that Iraqi farmers could only buy particular seeds at all, but provided protection for new trademarked seed varieties by preventing the reproduction or resale of those varieties without authorisation. It's basically the same as trademark provisions in most other countries in the world.Did you read the link I posted? I regret I couldn't read your links cos of an error with my Adobe reader.
And even if the other orders were not specifically rescinded, they ceased to have any effect in 2004, when the CPA was dissolved and the new Iraqi government took over running Iraq. Tax rates and immunity from prosecution is now the responsibility if the democratically elected government, and has been for over 8 years. If they haven't changed the laws, that's democracy in action.
#107
I think he might be confusing mercenary immunity with soldiers? A big reason why the US is withdrawing from Iraq now is that Iraq refuses to give US troops immunity any longer. If not, can you link where it's saying mercs are immune from persecution Madgrenade? I'd like to read about that.
Don't do this.Anyway enjoy the war Geoff. Try not to get shot.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
Apologies corporate staff lost thier immunity in 2008 although the US is still trying to get it back apparently.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/12/15/u...q-beyond-2012/
they still have 17000 "diplomats" with the state department working out of the US' "embassy" (the largest us embassy in the world, right in the heart of the capital.) They must have a lot to discuss.
Do what? I was only wishing him bon guerre as he is clearly so bang up for it. I wouldn't want anything to rob me of his insight.Don't do this.
#109
Thanks for the link, I guess I shouldn't be surprised they're still pushing for company and merc immunity.
Don't do passive aggressive snipes towards other posters like that. Keep it civil.Do what?
Madgrenade: There is a lengthy process that must be gone through before a country can fully develop on its own.
Take a look at South Africa and see how long it took them, and they are still busy with it, after apartheid ended. It is taking that long even without adding another country, mercs, etc. in the mix.
For other examples look at Chile or Brazil.
The road to justice is long, the roads to reconciliation, punishment, grief and forgiveness are just as long. And that's only for countries where all their problems are internal.
Expecting things to happen overnight is naive. We aren't even talking about timelines in single years. It takes decades. Plural. How many decades has it been for Iraq? None.
It has to be a step by step process so that there are no more wrongs committed, so that each previous wrong can be assessed correctly and compensated, so that there is building done instead of just breaking down.
To rush forward will just create more things to fix later. Again, look at South Africa. They tried to rush rebuilding the country. They tried to rush persecuting. It turned into a giant farce that just produced more anger and hate.
A friend of mine is currently doing her PHD on these topics, and she has found that when ever this kind of thing is rushed, innocent people get hurt. Every single time. And those that were wronged before become those that wrong others.
Perhaps you should allow cooler heads to prevail. Perhaps the situation is not how you think it is. Perhaps there are real people with real grievances and your pushing for faster action will rob these people of justice, will cause innocents to be punished, will cause the healing process to take much, much longer than it should.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
Thanks for your input LoCo
I just want to make a few things clear.
This thread is about the Iran oil embargo and the current military conflict with Iran.
The only reason I am referring to these historical examples is to illustrate that there is always more to these kinds of situations than meets the eye. The way that things are presented in the mainstream media never tally with the way way things play out in real life.
Iraq is history. The invasion already happened. There is nothing we can do to take it back.
I am not claiming I have all the answers regarding Iraq. Or any answers for that matter. However.
We went to war with Iraq sold on a lie. We were told that Iraq has large stockpile of WMD's in the media. This wasn't the case. Saddmn Hussein, sure he was a bad guy. He gassed Kurds and tortured people and did all kinds of terrible things. But even he would have struggled to get through a million people since '03.
Who sold him the WMD's? We did. So without our assistance he would have struggled to commit his most famous atrocity.
When that was revaled to be a falsehood we changed tack and decided we had actually decided that the war was about bringing peace and democracy to the poor benighted people of Iraq. Sure this is a laudable aim. But to invade someones country and start dictating to them what kind of government they are going to have is, dare I say, a tad presumptuous.
Ecspecially when we have formed an international body, the UN, whos founding charter says, basically, that we aren't gonna invade each other simply to force a change in government. Because the conflicts just end up dragging on and on. and on.
I'm not saying that if we pulled out all our forces tomorrow everything would be fine and dandy in Iraq.
We claim we are against the forces of islamic extremeist. But we give power to their argument everytime we do things like, for example, introduce a regime that allow 0% remittance of corporate profits.
Just so we are clear what this means. This means I can invade your country, set up my own multinational corporations in charge of your oil wells, sell the oil to myself and then sent all the profits back to my own country TAX FREE, and then claim I'm not an empire because it's a private corporation and it has nothing to do with me.
And then you wonder why it takes so long to bring peace? Sure we are really helping these guys.
And let me make another thing clear. I am not trying to denigrate the military. I have a lot of respect for their discipline and their commitment to thier role. But they are soldiers. They do what they are told. It takes a lot of courage, perhaps even more than battle courage, for a soldier to stand up and refuse an illegal order and go against his peers. Because a military cannot run unless everyone is confident that orders will be obeyed. Penalties, official and non official, are very severe so I hear.
I also don't want to take anything away from people who are serving and are good and moral people who really are trying to do good things, such as engineering, cultural development and all that good stuff. And protecting the people engaged in such endeavours.
It is our CIVILIAN LEADERS who put them up to it, and gave the bombers free reign with their "Shock and awe" opening strat. Which I think is counter productive because if there is one good way to make sure people never EVER forgive you it is to lay waste to their cities, destroy their homes, cripple their country. Shock and awe will quickly give way to rage and hate.
If I am hammering a nail and I hit my thumb, I would be very foolish to get angry with my hammer.
Attacking these muslim extremists is like pouring petrol on a fire. Everytime you go after one of these "terrorist masterminds" with an unmanned drones you end up killing a bunch of innocent bystanders and for every one of them thats maybe 5-10 more guys pissed at you beyond words. I could go on and have done in some of my previous posts.
Once again we stand at a crossroad. Not a crossroad, a restaraunt. We are sitting in a restaraunt.
On the table is a plate. We all know what we are supposed to do in a restaurant. We are supposed to eat the food, be polite, when the waitress comes over we will tell her how nice it is, and we pay the bill.
But the waitress presents us with a plate of lies and shit. Its foul. Some people who may not have eaten it before think it looks tasty. They wanna give it a try and why not? It's the polite thing to do. Some people have eaten that dish before, they've tasted it, and God knows how they have convinced themselves thay like it. They are happy to order it again and again and after a while the taste just keeps improving. I've been to that restaraunt, I ordered that dish, I gobbled it all up. And I tell you it isn't sitting well on my stomach.
But this restaraunt is also unique. There are many other people dining there but thats not the thing thats unique. What is is that when you choose to order that particular dish everyone else in the restaraunt has to eat it aswell. Sure some of them may like the taste but it isn't good for them. Others see a man about to pick that dish and they are shaking thier heads because they know what they are about to be asked to eat. They've had it before, they have seen the bill afterward, and it isn't worth it.
Some people may claim the management doesn't care if people don't like the food. But if that's the case then why did they send out Haki Baba to guage whether we are ready to start eating yet? Pehaps together we can convince them to revise the menu.
I think you are right. I hope cooler heads do prevail. But I'm here saying what I've got to say because.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince people
that they are being lied to.
Last edited by Madgrenade; 5th Jul 12 at 6:49 PM.
#112
You really need to start doing some basic research before posting. You have taken blatantly false propaganda put out by one extremist Islamic website and constructed your whole argument based on that. The problem is that everything you have used from that website is a lie, and you didn't even question any of it before posting. I have already shown how the claims about mandating that Iraqi farmers buy particular seeds and ongoing immunity from prosecution for contractors are lies, that just leaves you with the "0% corporate tax" claim. Let's look at it too...We claim we are against the forces of islamic extremeist. But we give power to their argument everytime we do things like, for example, introduce a regime that allow 0% remittance of corporate profits.
The CPA did introduce a 0% company tax rate in Iraq, that much is true. It was introduced at the same time as they introduced a 0% income tax rate for all Iraqis as well, from September 2003, and lasted for the same amount of time as the 0% income tax rate, until 1 April 2004. So, the CPA basically said nobody needed to pay any tax, for less than 6 months.
Edit: And, there is no current military conflict with Iran.
17000 diplomatically immune staff. Yeh sure they are all diplomats.
GMO suicide seeds shouldn't be sold or even made in my opinion.
You don't need to tax the peasentries meagre monies when you just jacked up their whole oilfield.
Its not my whole argument, and sure time crept up on me some things have changed. For that I apologise. Theres been a lot going on and a while since I took a look at Iraq.
Just saying it's not all cake and democracy.
EDIT looks like I'm still right on this one.
http://contractortaxation.com/iraq/taxation
EDIT: OOps thats just your income tax rate (if you are a foreigner) still looking for the corporate current rate.
EDIT3: found the Juice
http://www.investpromo.gov.iq/index.php?id=2Strong investment incentives, tax exemptions and guarantees offered
Iraq offers investors a period of ten years free from all taxes, including corporation tax and fees. This period is extended to 15 years if the project is a joint venture with a majority Iraqi stakeholder. Additional incentives include the right to repatriate investment and profits from investment, the right to employ foreign workers when needed and three years exemption from import fees for required equipment. The Government of Iraq also guarantees that investments will not be nationalized or confiscated.
Low corporate tax rates
Even after the generous tax-free period has been completed, investors will continue to benefit from Iraq’s company tax rate of only 15% - one of the most competitive in the region and globally. Both the tax free period and the low ongoing rate help investors to become profitable more quickly and encourages reinvestment.
Last edited by Madgrenade; 5th Jul 12 at 8:34 PM.
#114
So, from your own link, the corporate tax exemption is given by the Iraqi government. You know, the government that is democratically elected by it's citizens to make decisions about taxation...
The same way our democratically elected governments carry out our wishes, right? The same way Obama close Guantanamo and halved the deficit, yeah?So, from your own link, the corporate tax exemption is given by the Iraqi government. You know, the government that is democratically elected by it's citizens to make decisions about taxation...
Sigh. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...Iranian-ThreatAnd, there is no current military conflict with Iran.
EDIT I posted the above link mainly for the map. The little stars are all US bases. But theres oher interesting stuff on there aswell.
#116
Would be strange if the United States didn't have mutliple bases in Afghanistan, considering they've been there for our a decade fighting a war.
You're map is wrong as well, how about you post a more accurate map from a credible source?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/int...242767298.html
Doesn't look so bad now, does it? Make sure you read what type of bases those are on the map. Majority are simply supply bases, and not a build up of combat troops. A lot of the bases are shared with the nations own military.
#117
Yeah, exactly like that. If the Iraqi people don't like the decisions the government makes they will vote them out. That's what democracy means. How does that indicate that Iraq is part of a secret US empire?The same way our democratically elected governments carry out our wishes, right?
And the map in that link is completely irrelevant to whether or not there is a current military conflict with Iran. Hint: There isn't.
Sigh...
This is probably better addressed in a different thread but since it's come up so much in this one, do people really have such a naive idea about democracy? If the people don't like the decisions, they can just vote the government out? Seriously? Do people still think who the president or prime minister is actually makes any difference whatsoever? The West is largely a corporate oligarchy - the president/prime minister a figurehead who follows the agenda of those who have invested campaign dollars in him. There is no accountability as far as party platforms or campaign promises so voting someone new in usually makes very little difference. Voter turnout in Western nations is usually around 40-60% attesting to widespread apathy over the process having any meaning or impact and at best you have to wait several years before any regime change could even happen. It is still better than many other nations governments if we set the bar at the lowest denominator but I just find it terribly naive for people to still think that "democratic" governments actually make decisions based on what the people want. It's a laughably corrupt system on the whole. In Canada, for example we have dorky bullshit like this going on:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04...-say-liberals/
On topic, the Iranian regime doesn't seem like one whose motives I'd trust with nuclear power but the Iranian people are the ones who will suffer of course, stuck between the frying pan and the fire. The whole thing is so hypocritical though - it's just Might makes Right as per usual.
Evolve or Die...I choose to evolve.
Steam: Ekko Tek
I would rather not get into discussion on western democracies, but they are far superior to anything else.
West has its problems, it has its corruption and evil men and abusive corporations. Yet, one should not look only at past crimes to determine the course of action today.
The men who rule Iran may be there because of what United States did. Even more evil men might replace them if the west does something more. But we don't know that. What we do know, in short, is that these current leaders hold values that are in direct conflict with ours, and i would not trust such men with weapons of mass destruction.
And no amount of conspiracy theories, twisted facts, mile long posts of confused babble will change the reality we face.
But i don't think it will go as far as military conflict, at least not yet. Of course one cant be sure of these things... with things in Syria going as they are.
Things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not do: 1) deny the Holocaust; 2) say that Israel should be wiped off the map; 3) develop a nuclear weapons program. Suspicious sources and a lazy media echo-chamber have instilled many misconceptions into the American public’s mind about Iran. This is worrisome because such misconceptions leave the American public vulnerable for the type of hawkish manipulations that led into the Iraq war, and so for that reason US attitudes towards Iran need reexamining.
Nuclear Weapons Program
Top among the controversies surrounding Iran is the issue of their nuclear development. One goal of Iran’s energy policy is to use nuclear energy for domestic energy needs so that more of Iran’s oil supplies can be diverted for foreign sale. In developing their domestic nuclear energy program Iran has often skirted certain IAEA regulations, with the ostensible reason being that strict adherence to the rules has allowed the US to sabotage nuclear development contracts forged between Iran and other countries.
This evasion of IAEA directives has been the primary basis on which Iran has been accused of having a nuclear weapons program. However, in 2007, part of a United States National Intelligence Estimate was leaked that concluded that Iran had not worked on a nuclear weapons program since 1993.
“Vanish from the page of time” vs. “wiped from the map”
Since he was elected in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has received much criticism on his comments regarding Israel. The most famous of these was given in a speech called “A World Without Zionism” in which he quoted a line from Ayatollah Khomeini. An improper English translation painted him as calling for Israel to be “wiped from the map.” When word got out there was an international uproar. As it happens, in Persian there is no such idiom.
More accurate translations read “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time.” The focus of the speech was a hopeful vision of a world free from Western oppression of Muslims, and, in context, it is clear that this is not policy—much less a military threat. In fact, Iran has never made a military threat against Israel. Israel has against Iran, though—many, many times.
Holocaust Denial
Ahmadinejad has also met sharp international criticism over his comments on the Holocaust. The widespread and misleading allegation is that he denies that the Holocaust ever occurred. It is undoubtedly true that Ahmadinejad has raised some uncomfortable questions about the Holocaust. Indeed, in December 2006, he even convened a conference to explore historical evidence for the Holocaust, and he also occasionally referred to people making “a myth” of the Holocaust.
However, as Iran Specialist Professor Shiraz Dossa states, while Ahmadinejad’s “rhetoric has been excessive and provocative,” he“has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation. What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust.” Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory statements are all in the context of the Palestinian struggle. The questions are put in terms of skepticism towards the Holocaust’s use in justifying Zionist colonialism in Palestine. The intellectual exploration, undoubtedly born of a deep, sometimes justified, mistrust for the West, has never crossed the line into outright denial of the Holocaust.
When such statements have been conflated with anti-Semitism, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly clarified his position with statements like “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish.”
Jondu: First off... you can't claim to not want to debate "western democracies" and then make a statement about them. Either you are going to talk about it, or you are not. Since you are talking about it, please explain why and how you reached the conclusion that "they are far superior to anything else" since this statement is far from self explanatory, self evident or even within a very lose definition of "objective truth".
Second: "one should not look only at past crimes to determine the course of action today." what, pray tell, should one look at then? If one doesn't learn from the past...
Third: "Even more evil men might replace them if the west does something more. But we don't know that." Right, so then how about we work with the things that we do know? Why even bring up what we don't know? Does it strike you as productive to mention that we don't know everything? Do you really think people don't already know that we don't know everything?
Fourth: "What we do know, in short, is that these current leaders hold values that are in direct conflict with ours, and i would not trust such men with weapons of mass destruction" ... yeah, I'm concerned here that your position seems to be "Iran doesn't believe what we believe or think like we think so they shouldn't be trusted with the very same weapons we have". That position implies that Iran is less. Not just 'other' or 'different', but less. Not just less either, inferior and - with phrases like "trust such men" - contemptible. And how do you reach that position? By the simple stipulation that they hold values that you don't agree with.
And then you follow up with calling everyone who posts long insightful posts "conspiracy theories, twisted facts, mile long posts of confused babble" which leaves me to wonder if you do, in fact, know what exactly is the "reality we face".
Now... don't take this to mean that we are on opposite sides of the debate so I'm trying to dismiss your arguments. Madgrenade and I are on the same "side", but I disagree with why and how he reached his conclusions. You and I are on opposite sides, but I don't think your "why and how" are grounded in any facts. Rather, they seem to be parroted nonsense bordering on racism.
If you have any actual facts, then perhaps you could present them?
Not sure what has been going on the past few pages, but I am pretty sure the embargo isn't going to stop Iran from doing what they want. The oil embargo against Cuba is a great example this. Besides that Iranians have been repainting and renaming their tankers. It comes down to how long does the international community want to delay the inevitable.
There is no reason to invade Iran, the country is run by rational actors. They're not going to risk having their country nuked in return. If they hated Israel 'that' much, they'd already be attacking as well as producing chemical weapons.
The fact that our governments sanctioned murdering Iran's top physicists is despicable in every possible sense of the word.
What our Generals have to say on the matter is irrelevant, they are bought and paid for by the weapon manufacturers ("God Bless the Abrams Tank"), and will spread all the propoganda they need to in order to get us into another needless war, so we can spend billions buying more tanks, more jets, and more guns.
Never befriend an Ork on Facebook without first limiting your public profile from The Emperor.
#124
Almost as despicable as sanctioning murder of Israeli nationals around the world?Originally Posted by NastyNoodle
I don't know about any country with 'rational actors' publicly without any censor calling for the destruction of another country in it's entirety.
I'm not an Israel fanboy or war-nut (obvious by my prior posts on such topics) but Iran has hardly made a case for itself.
#125
Sorry if I misunderstood this, but it reads like you are claiming that the arms manufacturers are involved in a conspiracy to start a war, they are prepared to kill thousands of soldiers and civilians in order to make more money, and they have bribed all US generals in order to get their support for the conspiracy. Really? Do you have anything at all to support that?
Nurizeko, Yes, worse. Because we pretend to be better than this, not murdering civilian physicists because they teach the wrong subject. How dare those Iranians think that they're allowed to have nuclear energy, that's for us rich white nations. It reminds me of the argument that some people love to use, as how "If everyone in the school had a gun, there'd be no school shooters." I guess the logic doesn't apply to nukes.
Before I continue, I'd better start by saying I have no bias for or against Israel in this matter. However, Iran is by no means the only country with members who call for the destruction of other nations. Frankly, one could make a case that the United States' media is just as guilty of this, spreading propoganda and lies for the sake of getting into needless wars. The whole issue of whether or not Iran could attack the USA is a good example of this.
Yes. They are absolutely prepared to do that. Do you really think that defense contractors have no interest in starting wars? Before Iraq, one company was making roughly 6 billion dollars in profits. Now, they make 24 billion. Who cares if a few thousand people die as long as they can make a profit?
Some sources for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us...rals.html?_r=1, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCY30FXgLVY
Last edited by NastyNoodle; 20th Jul 12 at 8:30 AM.
#127
That's not what you claimed though, is it. Your claim was that US generals are "bought and paid for by the weapon manufacturers" to "spread all the propoganda they need to in order to get us into another needless war". Effectively, you claimed that arms manufacturers have bribed serving US generals in order to further a conspiracy to start another war. And your "sources" don't say anything of the sort. So, I'll ask again, what do you have to support your claims of bribery and conspiracy against serving generals?Do you really think that defense contractors have no interest in starting wars?
#128
The way you worded that seems to imply you regard western relations with hostile regimes through the prism of colonial racism. That or you misused sarcasm.
I'm coming from the angle that a regime that threatens to end the existence of another country entirely and then pursue nuclear weaponry at the expense of it's own people (are crippling sanctions really worth giving the international community the finger instead of cooperating with more internationally acceptable conditions for civilian nuclear energy?) is simply not to be trusted.
Iran could have nuclear energy right now, it's lack of cooperation up to and beyond the necessary level of refinement for nuclear power and pursuit of continued refinement is therefore disturbing.
Geoffs: It is what I claimed, if worded slightly differently. The defense contractors 'hire' the generals the second they leave the military, and pay them huge amounts of money to go on air, and claim that we have to go to war with (insert country here), because of a threat to America's national security, or deny that military spending should be cut, or praise said company, without informing the viewers that they have been hired by company. My sources say all of the above.
Now, with regards to serving generals, they know just like politicians, that if they don't play ball with the companies, or rock the boat, that they won't be receiving their nice fat pay check when they retire.
Nurizeko: I am a fan of western culture, I just think we can be incredibly hypocritical, and believe that America is far too in the pocket of Israel at the moment. Israel could invade Norway for kicks, and they'd follow them in. Also, your first link was rather amusing, as the first thing on the google search results was
Also, I have to take the second link with a grain of salt, as it's written by the 'Jewish Community Relations Council' which is bound to be a little biased. Another thing to add, would be that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and it's government has shown itself to have been a full supporter of Bin Laden, who has attacked the western world a fair few times more than Ahmadinejad, yet we do nothing.Israel threatens a 'heavy price' for Iran after deadly Bulgaria bus bomb
Mr Netanyahu went out of his way to link the attack with Tehran's nuclear ambitions
Nurizeko: Try reading the thread. If you are going to claim that Makenshi is wrong, perhaps you should provide some evidence that isn't just a link to a Google search result.
Further, if your linked search shows anything, it's that there are only a few people in the Iranian government who say such things. Sounds like just about every other government out there. But hey, it's only bad if Iran does it because they want to 'spode everyone with giant radioactive missiles! ... since when?
How about a modified version of your search?
You're coming from the angle that a regime that threatens to end the existence of another country entirely is simply not to be trusted? Should I also link all the ways in which Israel doesn't best serve its people?
Or how about how Iran is trying to look after the welfare of its own people by pursuing nuclear power in a world that doesn't want them to have it and be able to hold their own against an aggressive neighbor?
Yes. True. Iran is also aggressive with Israel. Would you rather they back down all the time? Would you rather they are cowed by Israel and its relationship with the US?
Seems to me that impartiality isn't really an option here for you because you have made up your mind. You have a bias. It's showing.
The two countries are similar is just about every aspect. Anyone claiming that one should come out on top of the other has a bias. The best solution for those two countries is that they both lose, or at the very least that neither wins. To be fair to both countries, who each have their own faults and their own legitimate grievances, you need to be fair to neither of them.
But that's all irrelevant to the thread.
What is relevant is that Iran should be allowed to pursue Nuclear weapons based on the fact that people making threatening noises towards it (The US for example) have Nukes of their own. For MAD to continue to work, all players need to be in the game. If the game is only run by a select few, then the game is rigged.
And even that is irrelevant because Iran is only trying to power their country, not build weapons.
Unless... you have some evidence?
Great post from Loco, managed to represent all my thoughts in a far more eloquent manner than my own.
#132
I can agree that the US and Israel are very close allies, which doesn't help bring Israel to heel on other issues, but that has little bearing if the case against Iran still stands. It's one thing to call a country on bullying another, it's another thing to suspect another country of pursuing nuclear weaponry against the will of the international community, especially with a stated aim to end the existence of another.
And in more practical concerns even if Iran had the right to nuclear weapons, the world community at large perceives a nuclear Iran as an unacceptable threat to global security. Iran gains very little from this pursuit but continued hardship and pariah status which in term is harming it's population who aren't fond of the regime to begin with.
That first link is about the recent bus bombing in Bulgaria, sounds like Israel is threatening to respond to that, do you disagree with a country's right to respond to attacks on it's people?
One of the fundamental responsibilities of a regime with the justifies responsibility to rule is that it protects it's citizens from alien states and organizations, groups and individuals who would menace and harm them.
And no bombing a bus full of Israeli's for the death of nuclear scientists isn't really the best way to go around it. It's one thing to pursue diplomatic and even military recourse for perceived harms done, and most people accept that many countries engage in 'shadow wars' of espionage, and assassination, but again attacking the civilians of another country really doesn't earn you empathy from the global community at large.
As I said, I am not seeing much in the way of rational actor in regards to Iran, and thus feel the risks outweigh the costs of entertaining the Iranian regime's side of things.
Loco: If you're forbidding me from using Google then you're basically ending debate and conceding it to me because 1) I can't debate without the tools I have available and 2) only someone who fears their position untenable tries to stop the other from even engaging.
I specifically remember when it was generally accepted that Ahmadinejad threatened the existence of Israel, all the same:
Of course you could argue around in circles but I am not reading the words of a man with peace in his mind. If he did not claim it himself he is supportive of a leader within the Iranian regime who did. Fact. Israel has a fundamental right to exist and the first instance is a statement of opposition to that. The second instance essentially states that anyone who disagrees with the right of Israel to exist is against the regime of Iran and against Islam. While this is a thorny issue that ties into perceived Islamic dogma, end of the day the global community accepts the notion that all recognised existing states have a right to exist.
The last instance is concerning a stain. That stain is considered Israel.
Now don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of playing to the crowds, "die capitalist dogs" was a nice little sound-byte for the cold war but I'm sure Soviet leaders were more practical with their true intentions and policies as history shows but the international community cannot rely on that, we must take what we get and that is an Iran that threatens the existence of a regional neighbour.
The translation controversy (just caught up) is cute but seems to be dancing around the fact that Iran is threatening Israel. 'wipe off the map' and 'remove the regime occupying Jerusalem from the pages of time' is all very linguistically interesting but from my perspective 'from the pages of time' and 'off the map' are essentially one and them same.
...And is obviously not universally accepted that he did say what I responded to above anyway.
But until I see a press release with the Iranian regime accepting the unassailable right for Israel to exist (alongside Palestine or otherwise) continued discussion on that line is pointless.
Israel wants to at best bomb some nuclear research and facilitation facilities. Iran can demonstrably be argued to want to end Israel. Bit different no? The article continues with Iranian remarks which raise eyebrows if you want to kill some time.
The fallacy that bias is somehow flawed. You hold bias to. Your bias tells you my position is wrong despite giving very little basis as to why Iran gets a free pass on joining the nuclear club aside from 'rigged games' and the flimsy basis that all states should be included in MAD despite the fact that MAD solely relies on never actually using the weapons.
The world at large feels Iran cannot be trusted to not flip that switch, or give it to others who will.
You may believe all nations have a right to hold nuclear weaponry which is your opinion and bias but is not sufficient to sway mine.
My bias is born from the fact I see Israel's right to exist (or any state's right to exist) as unassailable and threats therein incredibly unacceptable. My bias tells me that a regime that demonstrably threatens the existence of another cannot be allowed to pursue nuclear weaponry (which is the case, Iran has gone beyond the mere pursuit of civilian energy, which could have been harnessed within the international frameworks and therefore create no issue aside from some American moaning).
My bias is born from the facts I have gathered from events. Anyone who has any even brief recollection of my attitudes and opinions in other threads regarding conflict and intervention can assure you my default position and sensibilities are that intervention is a last resort scenario and not to be entered into at whims and fancy but the facts from what I understand (and that the international community agree with) is that Iran cannot be allowed to threaten regional and even world peace with nuclear weaponry. I do not trust Iran, the global community does not trust Iran. Bombing some Iranian infrastructure is a fair price to pay to keep nuclear weapons out of dangerous hands.
My bias has what I feel to be reasonable conditions, does yours? So far I feel I must reject your reasoning as it stands.
That is subject to change on the conditions Iran shows itself this 'rational actor', but a regime that makes an enemy of it's own people and the world in general is hardly winning me to it's case. Simple as.
#133
Why do you think Iran would let loose a nuke?
Nurizeko: Not once. Not once did I say or imply that you were not allowed to use Google.
What you did was link to a Google search result. As your argument that Iran threatened Israel with ending their existence, you provided this as your proof. That is proof of nothing. That's the result of a Google search. It's a list of every place on the internet which has the string of words "iran threatens israel". You can not use that as proof.
(As an aside: There are 10.8 million hits for "Israel threatens Iran" while "Iran threatens Israel" only has 8.7 million hits. Just to put all that "The world at large" business into some perspective)
You obviously can't find a credible source or you would have linked that. So instead you basically link to "the internet" where you can find just about anyone saying just about anything.
If you do have a credible source, why did you not link it? Are you playing a game?
Did you read the bit right after what you quoted there "from the man himself"? Here, let me help you:
Yeah. Sounds like a real crazed nutjob just itching to unleash nuclear winter. I can see why you wouldn't want him to generate electricity for his own people. The bastard.
Also, I deny that I have bias in this. I don't care who 'wins' in there. I don't give two shits. Hell, I don't give one. What I do care about is well made, rounded and argued arguments. An argument like yours is not well made, is not well rounded, and not well argued. I place the blame on this on your bias because I believe on other topics you have made well rounded, made and argued arguments. The difference in this case is that your bias on this topic is clouding your thinking.
So, tell me. What bias do I have here that is making me think you are wrong?
Where did I say MAD relies on anything other than everyone not using the nukes? I know what MAD requires. What, other than your gut feeling, tells you that Iran is going to glass Israel if they get Nukes?
The "world at large" does not feel as you do. That's why this is a fucking issue. Because people are divided on it. Stop speaking for "the world at large". Stop trying to drag everyone else's support just because you can't argue your own case. Perhaps take a moment to question why you can't argue your own case to satisfaction. Question yourself. When it comes down to it, what, exactly, is the reason for your position? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's a 'gut feeling'. You just don't trust them, but you trust Israel.
I don't trust Iran any more than I trust the US, the UK, North Korea, Russian, etc.
But then, I don't need to trust them to see that the situation, as it stands, is not right. You may be willing to sacrifice ideals like "equality", "fairness", "truth", "justice", etc. because you have a gut feeling about not trusting someone you have never met while trusting someone else you also haven't met, but I'm more inclined to stick with those ideals.
I'll say it again. The only fair way to handle this situation is to be unfair to both sides. But what you are arguing for is to be fair to Israel, and screw Iran.
I'm sorry but that's unacceptable. And just because some powerful people agree with you don't make it right. Not to mention that there are powerful people who also disagree with you. So where does that leave your argument?
How does your argument stand on its own merits?
#135
Ahmadinejad is a nutjob. He might be right from time to time, or say the odd thing you agree with, but at the end of the day he's said enough to earn his label. You can't write everything he's said off as a mistranslation, but I'm still curious as to why, amidst all the controversy over these translations, he's never come out and actually cleared the air.Yeah. Sounds like a real crazed nutjob just itching to unleash nuclear winter.
I mean, if you were accused of denying the holocaust or wishing death on another nation when you had intended nothing of the sort, would you not want to set things straight?
Iran also wants nuclear weaponry, it's not simply about cheaper electricity, if that was the case they would have simply bought the tech rather than try and develop it themselves.
I don't want Iran to have nukes, and I don't know why anyone would. Fairness has no place here. It's not like inviting the dickhead kid in the class to your birthday party so he's not left out, it's about restricting the number of weapons of mass destruction.
#136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...fying_commentsYou can't write everything he's said off as a mistranslation, but I'm still curious as to why, amidst all the controversy over these translations, he's never come out and actually cleared the air.
Whenever you think or see something like the above, it's usually good to check. Usually people do clarify their comments.
Remember: you're a blogger. Pretense is your co-pilot.
#137
So now you have backed off from your original claims of conspiracy and bribery and are merely saying that some retired military personnel get jobs with defence contractors... Thanks for the clarification.
#138
@TDS, I'm sorry, I gave a quick google myself but turned up nothing. All I came across was other's explaining his comments away, but never himself. Thanks for the link.
Not to harp on about it Sentinel, but:
The type of people who usually want you to do this sort of thing are usually the type of people who are just looking for another opportunity to twist your words.Ahmadinejad is a nutjob. He might be right from time to time, or say the odd thing you agree with, but at the end of the day he's said enough to earn his label. You can't write everything he's said off as a mistranslation, but I'm still curious as to why, amidst all the controversy over these translations, he's never come out and actually cleared the air.
I mean, if you were accused of denying the holocaust or wishing death on another nation when you had intended nothing of the sort, would you not want to set things straight?
Not to mention that "if you didn't say that stuff why wouldn't you set things straight?!" sounds alarmingly like "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to fear!!".
The current attitude is "Iran can't be trusted because they can't be trusted!". I can't disprove that Ahmadinejad is not a nutjob. That would be impossible. Proving/disproving a negative is a logical fallacy. Something is not true just because it can't be disproved.
What I can do is point to rational things he has said and done.
Further, I'd urge you not to get too involved in calling anyone a nutjob. For a long time I called Bush a nutjob when the truth is he was just being an idiot. For various reasons people make bad decisions sometimes. The worst you can say about them is that they are just being human. How dare they!
Either show proof that Ahmadinejad is a nutjob or accept him as human. He runs a country from under all kinds of pressures and sometimes he is going to have to bow to some of those pressures to keep things moving. Just like every other world leader out there.
So unless every world leader is also a nutjob, unless you can find one that hasn't made stupid/insane decisions from time to time, I don't think you can call Ahmadinejad a nutjob.
But as I said, I don't care who 'wins' in this. I'm only arguing against the anti-Iran side because: A) It seems rather over-represented, and B) the arguments used by the anti-Iran side don't make sense.
Someone present an argument for Iran not having their own nuclear power that makes sense. Someone provide an argument for Iran having to buy the tech instead of developing it themselves (Because I'd love to see the logic that states that keeping knowledge hidden away is a good thing - with proof if you please). Someone provide an argument for why Iran are not allowed to have Nukes that isn't based on a gut feeling of 'not trusting'.
Those are the issues in the thread. Instead we've got people running around screaming about "I don't trust them!!!" and "They are going to NUKE Israel, I just know it!!!" or "Ahmadinejad is a nutjob!!".
#140
I don't see the connection between refuting a wrongful translation that paints you as the devil to "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to fear!". A lot of people have formed opinions on the man based on those translations, and were I, and I image most other's in his shoes I would want to set the record straight, rather than become a pariah and bed time villain.
Whether his irrationality is due to lunacy, idiocy or extremism is hardly relevant. It's splitting hairs over terminology when I was simply trying to convey that he is not rational by my standards. I'm not a psychologist and I can't find any professional analysis of the him through google, but from a layman's perspective, accusing Europe of stealing your rain doesn't strike me as the words of a rational being.
Iran buying the tech means they won't have the knowledge to build WMD's themselves, so the only reason to pursue in house development is to gain the nuke card or for the sake of political posturing.
I'm not trying to attack Iran, and from this thread my bias against them has eased considerably, but I'm still completely against them having nuclear weapons.
I've already mentioned several times in this thread why I don't want Iran to have nukes, but I'll cover it again: Having nuclear weapons removes accountability. Nuclear nations can do what they like with no fear of any military recourse, and Iran has already demonstrated it's ability to shrug off embargoes.
I'm also completely against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in general. Even if we can't trust the nations that already have them (not my opinion btw), what's the sense in adding another untrustworthy nation to list? For the simple sake of "fair"?
Come on Geoffs, that's not what I said in my response and you know it. The retired Generals are hired as 'analysts' by the defense contractors, to go on air and tell us how we need stay in Iraq and go to war in Iran (without telling us it's in their financial interest), because doing so would directly benefit the people that hired them. At the same time, the current military leaders don't want to go against what they say either, or they'll lose out on their big paycheck once they've retired.So now you have backed off from your original claims of conspiracy and bribery and are merely saying that some retired military personnel get jobs with defence contractors... Thanks for the clarification.
So I stand by my original statement. The US military leadership is bought and paid for by the defense contractors, just as the politicians are bought by the banks and corporations.
#142
You stand by it even though the links you provided prove it wrong...
Edit:
Or they may simply want to not be dependent on other countries supplying them with the technology.
Last edited by GeoffS; 21st Jul 12 at 7:27 PM. Reason: Added new content
GeoffS: Please show where my links proved me wrong, rather than just saying I'm wrong, considering that an example given is McCaffrey saying "God Bless the Abrams tank", and harping on about how amazing and vital it is to the war effort, without disclosing that he's now an employee of Abrams.
#144
Your links prove you wrong because there is nothing in them about serving generals, they are solely about retired generals getting jobs with defence contractors. Show me where, either in your links or in other links, you have anything at all to prove that "The US military leadership is bought and paid for by the defense contractors...".
As I have said twice now, it is in the serving General's best interests to not rock the boat by saying we spend too much on jets that don't work, and that we shouldn't be going to war in Iran etc. If they do rock the metaphorical boat, they're not going be getting their big fat paycheck from the defense contractors as 'advisers' once they've retired from the military.Your links prove you wrong because there is nothing in them about serving generals, they are solely about retired generals getting jobs with defence contractors. Show me where, either in your links or in other links, you have anything at all to prove that "The US military leadership is bought and paid for by the defense contractors..."
This fits with my original statement:What our Generals have to say on the matter is irrelevant, they are bought and paid for by the weapon manufacturers ("God Bless the Abrams Tank"), and will spread all the propoganda they need to in order to get us into another needless war, so we can spend billions buying more tanks, more jets, and more guns.
#146
So, as I have said multiple times now, you have no evidence to support your wild conspiracy theory...
Do you deny that the same thing happens with politicians being hired by corporations they've helped in the past as 'advisers' and lobbyists the second they retire? Who are then paid huge sums of money for doing nothing in what essentially amounts to a legal way of bribing someone? "Scratch my back now, and I'll scratch yours when you're retired, just like we've done with all your retired friends."
Because it's exactly the same logic as my argument with regards to military officials.
Edit: The whole point of the system they have set up is that it can't legally be called a bribe, as they're paid once they leave.
#148
The very first thing I asked you was this: "Sorry if I misunderstood this, but it reads like you are claiming that the arms manufacturers are involved in a conspiracy to start a war, they are prepared to kill thousands of soldiers and civilians in order to make more money, and they have bribed all US generals in order to get their support for the conspiracy. Really? Do you have anything at all to support that?" and you replied with: "Yes. They are absolutely prepared to do that."
If you had just said at that time that you didn't really mean they had bribed generals we would not have gone through all of this.
Hate that this has turned into a geoff/noodle/geoff/noodle/geoff/noodle routine, but.
The Defense Contractors ARE actively trying to start a war with Iran, and keep us in Iraq etc for as long as they possible can, because it's in their financial interest to do so. Corporations are soulless machines. They will always pursue the money, even if it means a few hundred thousand people die in a war.
To do this, they bribe retiring US generals into telling the viewers at home how amazing these companies are, and that we 'have' to go to war, how dangerous Iran is, and at the same time ensure that serving generals keep mum on the issue, or else they don't get paid when it's their turn to retire.
Last post for now, going to let some other people chime in.
n0z3k1ll3r: Not going to dignify that with a comment.
#150
Is this in the same way that automobile manufacturers blow up buses and funeral homes murder people?The Defense Contractors ARE actively trying to start a war with Iran, and keep us in Iraq etc for as long as they possible can, because it's in their financial interest to do so. Corporations are soulless machines. They will always pursue the money, even if it means a few hundred thousand people die in a war.
Let's Play Europa Universalis 3: Divine Wind
Let's Play Master of Magic: Abandoned
In the beginning there was nothing. Then Steam crashed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
