BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran

Subject: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 11:45 PM

The U.S. claims that insurgent weapons in Iraq were from Iran while planning terrorist activities in Iran. I hope the documents that were siezed, point directly at the U.S.   

"IRNA quoted an unnamed "responsible official" late Friday as saying that one of those arrested on charges of involvement in Wednesday's bombing, identified as Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, has confessed that the attacks were part of alleged U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.

The confessions by Zehi helped police detain an unspecified number of Jundallah members and confiscate weapons and documents from the group in a raid Thursday in Zahedan, IRNA also said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/17/ap/world/mainD8NB523G0.shtml

Now that the world is beginning to realize that Bush and company are the real enemy, what can be done about it? He can do alot more damage in the next two years. I think GWB is a sociopath (he hates us all) and plans to leave the world on the brink of disaster when he leaves office. We will be so busy trying avert an all out nuclear catastrophe that he will never be tried for war crimes.

Thats not a conspiracy, thats a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:07 AM

I love the way that dianavan accepts 100% whatever news source tells stories that blacken the US, yet challenges anything that runs counter to that perspective.

Now lets take a look at the facts dianavan:

The weapons and/or the technology to manufacture them are definitely coming from Iran, of that there is no doubt whatsoever. What is under discussion, and has not yet been established beyond doubt is whether or not those weapons and that technology are being exported from Iran with the support and active participation of the Iranian Government.

Iran does not have, nor has it ever had, the best human rights record in the world. It had, and still does have, one of the nastiest internal security services in the world. Unlike the places that dianavan loves to hate, in the Iran controlled by the "12 Old Gits", there is no such thing as freedom of anything apart from the compulsory freedom/requirement to conform. The "confession" wrung from this man must be totally believed? sorry dianavan I'm slightly sceptical about that.

At no time has the US ever threatened Iran, any sabre rattling that has been done has been from the Iranian side. They feel under threat because they have been caught out and the international community has called them to book for it - note dianavan, the international community, not simply the USA.

Now if it is considered to be OK, by dianavan, others and the "12 Old Gits", for Iran to support and sponsor terrorist groups acting in other countries. Then none of the aforementioned can really complain if someone supports and sponsors terrorist groups operating inside Iran - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - true? I don't necessarily subscribe to that point of view but you cannot fault the logic of it. I would much prefer it if Iran withdrew its state sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah then that would enhance the chance of a peace deal being brokered in Palestine and in Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:03 AM

"I think GWB is a sociopath (he hates us all) and plans to leave the world on the brink of disaster when he leaves office."

Wrong. George - in pandering to a strong part of his essential religious support base, wants to destroy the whole world, because that needs to happen before the second coming of Christ at the end of the world - which is what they live for.

Interestingly, did you know that the majority Rabbi view was originally that the Jews should NOT be given Israel by the actions of Man - because the Jews were not (according to their Holy Word) to get their Homeland until AFTER the coming of the Messiah - which of course, they deny has yet happened. And now Israel has been 'given by the hand of Man' - the majority view has reversed...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:58 AM

Robin, that was never the majority view, but it is one that was (and still is) held by a very small minority of ultra-Orthodox Jews...the mujahedeen of the Jewish world. Some of them participated in the recent "there was no Holocaust" conference in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:37 AM

What is Irans role in destabilizing Lebanon and Iraq??

Dianavan automatically goes running to defend anybody opposing the US and/or Israel.

Perhaps she is afraid if Iran because of Ahmadinejad's satement:

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

Tell me Dianavan, How do they treat women on Iran? Getting stoned in Iran has a whole differnt meaning.

If you are truly for Human rights you would oppose the Iranian government instead of defending it.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:03 AM

Danavan does not want this government to be destabilized:

The regime's authorities usually force the victim's family members, including children, to watch the stoning to death of their loved one, and in some instances, when the woman miraculously managed to escape, contrary to the regime's own law, she was recaptured and either stoned again or killed on the spot.

On August 10, 1994, in the city of Arak, a woman was sentenced to death by stoning. According to the ruling of the religious judge, her husband and two children were forced to attend the execution. The woman urged her husband to take the children away, but to no avail. A truck full of stones was brought in to be used during the stoning. In the middle of the stoning, although her eyes had been gouged out, the victim was able to escape from the ditch and started running away, but the regime's guards recaptured her and shot her to death.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 11:52 AM

Bush's iran strategy is pushing the right buttons

David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:10 PM

Isn't this fun? America (its government, I mean) and Iran are BOTH absolutely full of things to point one's finger at and say..."Oh! Look how bad they are!"

Anyway, here's another viewpoint to toss in the pot and stir around. Read and enjoy:


Hmmm...wait. The link doesn't work anymore. Can't do a blue clicky for some reason.

Okay, I will copy and paste it here instead then. From Keeble McFarlane's column in the Jamaica Observer, as of yesterday. Here it is:

Is the Bush League gearing up for war with Iran?

Keeble Mcfarlane
Saturday, February 17, 2007


Five years ago, George Bush the Second went before the US Congress to deliver what has become a staple of the US presidency - the State of the Union address. On that occasion, it was less about the state of the American union and much more about the state of the world - the world as the Bushlet and his coterie of neo-conservative Rasputins wished to see with their ambitious plan to reorganise parts of it to their liking. Bush let fly with a phrase which has joined the list of memorable sayings - the "Axis of Evil". Although Bush had already focused his laser beam on Iraq, from even before he secured the White House through what frequenters of RM courts across Jamaica would recognise as larceny by a trick, he had Iraq's much larger neighbour, Iran, and far away North Korea in his sights as well.

In short order, George W orchestrated all the vast and extremely powerful instruments of state at his command and launched his attack on the hapless Saddam Hussein and his malnourished and demoralised population and its equally demoralised and de-fanged armed forces. The victory was rapid, apparently complete and relatively cheap - except, of course, in the "collateral damage" suffered by Iraqis who happen to run afoul of the rampaging US military and in actual dollars, billions of which were shrink-wrapped on pallets and shipped by the tonne on US military cargo planes.

What Bush, his defence secretary, Rumpsfeldstilskin, and their hand-picked generals and admirals failed to anticipate was the staggering cost of the aftermath of their 21st century blitzkrieg. Bush is now asking the US Congress to shovel additional billions to send in several thousand more soldiers and marines in his illusionary "surge": this on top of the billions already burned through with nothing to show for it but the deaths of something like half-a-million Iraqis and more than 3000 American men and women in uniform. Not to mention the terror, disorganisation, uncertainty and degradation that every morning greets the average Iraqi, whether he or she be Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Christian or None of the Above.

Even though US voters rejected his war at their last trip to the polls in November, Bush II continues with his platitudes which sound increasingly disconnected from reality. His argument grows more hollow, and continues with repetitions and occasionally new twists on the old theme which amounts to "we have to keep on killing Iraqis and Americans because so many have already given their lives". And while this morass continues to divide his fellow-Americans, to drain their resources, immense as they are, and exasperate even his closest and most loyal allies, Bush now appears to be aiming his attention slightly to the east of Iraq - to its larger and much more powerful neighbour, Iran. And Iran is no Iraq. It has 68 million people, occupies three times the land that Iraq does, and has a muscular military which has not suffered from the decade-plus sanctions to which Saddam's Iraq was subjected. It is a democracy of a sort, with an elected president and Parliament, but with a bunch of unelected mullahs wielding an effective veto over their decisions.

This is an unfortunate, but not surprising, holdover from the Islamic revolution 28 years ago in which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini replaced the by then totally despised Shah and his too rapid and extensive westernisation of the country. That had culminated in the takeover of the US embassy by radical Islamists and a siege which lasted 444 days. Many Americans, including, presumably, Bush and his neo-con cohorts, have never forgotten nor forgiven Iran for this. Eight members of the US military died during a disastrous rescue attempt, but the Americans conveniently forget that one of their navy ships shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, taking the lives of 290 civilians.

The current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a bit of a loose cannon, spouting anti-Semitic and anti-Israel vitriol and vehemently denying that the Holocaust ever occurred. He's also intent on developing a nuclear capability, claiming Iran needs a guaranteed electricity supply, and just recently promising to cooperate with international bodies which seek to prevent his country from developing nuclear weapons.
(This is a country sitting on one of the world's largest pools of petroleum - but never mind that.) Iran's nuclear ambitions disturb the Israelis, as well as their principal sponsor, Washington. What chills many Middle East watchers is that Israel may decide to reprise its dazzling attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities before the first Gulf war with a similar sortie against Iran. Even more disturbing is the possibility that the Americans may decide to do the job themselves.
Don't laugh - right now the Persian Gulf is bristling with about 100 US Navy ships, and another naval battle group, comprising 20 ships, is on its way. There are a number of other signs - the Bush League has cranked up its rhetoric against Iran about working towards developing nuclear weapons; about Iran's support for Hizbollah in Lebanon; about how Iran is equipping and training Iraqis to fight against the US occupiers; its harassment of Iranian diplomats in Iraq and its orders to US forces to annihilate Iranian spies and other operatives there. Several knowledgeable observers and former high-level government employees say this latest effort in pre-emptive military action could happen quickly - perhaps within the next month or so.

Switching to the third member of that "Axis of Evil" - in spite of the high-decibel rhetoric against North Korea, the US went back to the table in Beijing with four other countries and the so-called "rogue" regime in Pyongyang to discuss the dismantling of its nuclear programme. On Tuesday it announced the beginning of a new effort towards that end.
The deal - struck by the two Koreas, the US, China, Japan and Russia - requires North Korea to begin shutting down its reactor at Yongbyon within 60 days in exchange for fuel and other aid. After that, it would receive more aid if it continued the process. Two days ago the two Koreas agreed to re-open high-level talks, paving the way for a resumption of food aid to the beleaguered and secretive country. The administration's favourite pit bull, John Bolton, decries the agreement, saying it in effect pays off North Korea for behaving badly. But Bush defends the deal - while he cautions that this is only a first step, he says the critics are "flat wrong".

And what do the North Koreans know about playing poker?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:11 PM

At least Iran has been at (undeclared but covertly waged) war with us for decades, unlike Iraq. Iran was behind the Embassy bombings before Al Qaeda took over that part of the job, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: able
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:52 PM

I can usually agree with you on a number of things,dianavan, but on this issue, you are totally wrong. Iran is a sworn enemy to any philosofy that is not their own. It does create unrest and sponsors violence wherever it can. I wish that one day the people will see the light, and toss out the hate filled religious bigots who continue to make their country a pariah among the world's nations. If the US is trying to destabilise the country, and manage to cause a revolution, then I am certainly in favour of that course of action. Hopefully, their young men won't have to pay a high price. The leaders set the policies and the men pay the cost in blood. I spent my time in the military, and am glad I'm too old now, most of the causes they are fighting for now could make desertion a viable alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:18 PM

Well, to turn the clock back to the early 1950's...the USA has already de-stabilized Iran. They arranged to bring down a democratically elected government there through a CIA covert operation in 1951, and to replace it with absolute tyrranical rule by a monarch, the Shah of Iran.

The reason they brought down the elected government of Mossadegh was simple. Mossadegh had taken on a major British oil company (the forerunner of BP). He nationalized all Iranian petroleum assets. He did that on behalf of Iran and its people with enormous public support, but his action was not appreciated by the Corporatocracy, particularly in the UK.

Washington sent a CIA agent, Kermit Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson) to organize riots, demonstrations, and similar activities in Iran by the simple expedient of paying various people lots of US dollars to go out and raise hell. It worked. The government was brought down, the Shah was brought in, and Iran's oil remained under foreign corporate control which was what the exercise was all about. To hell with democracy, and to hell with Iranians and their future as a free and democratic nation under its own jurisdiction.

Everything that has happened since...the eventual overthrow of the Shah, the rise of the mullahs, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war, and the enduring hostility between Iran and the USA goes straight back down the spiderweb of history to that covert CIA operation in 1951 which brought down a freely elected government and replaced it with an absolute monarchy (like in Kuwait or Saudia Arabia).

Iranians know that and remember it. Most Americans don't.

The fact that Iran now has an extreme fundamentalist society is the longterm result of American meddling in Iranian affairs over 50 years ago. The USA sowed the wind at that time. They did it to ensure the maintenance of corporate oil profits, not to protect freedom. Who will reap the whirlwind?

Read all about it in John Perkins' bestselling book: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:21 PM

If the US is trying to destabilise the country, and manage to cause a revolution, then I am certainly in favour of that course of action.

Terrorist bombings in New York didn't "cause a revolution" - they swung people behind the government, and helped it to get away with doing some very stupid things. Why should anyone expect it to be any different when the bombings are in Tehran?

Whether the USA is behind the bombings or not, most ordinary Iranians are likely to believe that it is. In any case the effect will be to make it harder for patriotic Iranians to criticise or oppose their government.

Previous actions by the USA in the region played a major part in the victory of more extremist politicians such as Ahmadinejad in the last elections in Iran. (Yes, they do have genuine elections in Iran, and governments can lose them. And that is why Ahmadinejad is in power.)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:32 PM

The USA has a long history of doing things that promote the rise of the very extremist and radical forces in the world which the USA claims to be most opposed to. Odd, isn't it? You'd almost think they wanted people around the world to hate them. You'd almost think they wanted a continual state of instability, war, and the threat of further war.

Hmm........

(When I say "the USA" in the above statement, I am referring to the military-industrial complex and the Corporatocracy...NOT to the American public! I hope that is abundantly clear. The American public, for the most part, only know what they are told, and they aren't told much.)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: bubblyrat
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:34 PM

The Iraqis are Arabs----The Iranians are not. And yet ,they both have an implacable hatred for Israel. As long as that attitude prevails,then both Iraq and Iran will continue to attract the fear,suspicion and hostility of not only the USA, but of all civilised countries , especially those whose economies depend on oil !
Consider the repercussions of an overwhelming attack on Israel.The Israelis would almost certainly resort to the use, if their country was on the brink of defeat,of nuclear weapons.So what,then,if a major proportion of the free world"s oil supply was rendered radio- active for the next X- thousand years ?? Can America ,or any of us, shrug our shoulders and say "So what ??"----No, I'm afraid, we can't.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:36 PM

I do not support the human rights abuses in Iran but I do not think that it is the role of the U.S., on their own, to interfere with a democratically elected government(or any others, for that matter). If the people of any country want a change, its up to them to make it or to seek help from the International community.

The U.S. should not engage in terrorist activities or support terrorism nor should they accuse other governments of supplying arms to an enemy unless they have proof.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

The existence of hostility towards Israel is extremely dangerous. That's why bringing about a fair settlement in that part of the world is so desperately important.

The hostility felt towards Israel on the part of other countries in the regime doesn't have its sources in the kind of anti-semitism that was engendered in Europe, culminating in the Jewish Holocaust. It arises from a tragic and continuing colonial conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: kendall
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM

So, where is the proof that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:06 PM

Why is it even an issue? I mean, why wouldn't the Iranians help arm anyone who was fighting the American occupying forces in that part of the world? The USA, after all, helps arm anyone they want to in any regional conflict anywhere in the world where they feel their interests lie.....they have done so in Asia, Central America, Africa, Europe, South America...they have trained and funded Latin American death squads for decades through the School of the Americas facility, which I believe is now located in Panama.

I laugh at this being talked about as if it were somehow such a gigantic and terrible thing that Iran is doing if it is arming Shia militias in Iraq. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The USA sounds like Al Capone complaining bitterly about some smaller criminal gang that is muscling in on his turf.

Their illusion is that when they do it, it's good...but when others do it, it's evil.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:22 PM

It up to Little Hawk to decide of he wants to support a government that stones it's citizens to death.

Is it perfectly all right for Iran to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon?

I am not tellig you guy what to think or do. I am just pointing out the ironys in the points of view you express.

EG: American corporations exploit 3rd world countries without mentioning that all, as far as I can see, industrialized countries have corporations that do the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:44 PM

Correction

It is up to Little Hawk to decide of he wants to support a government that stones it's citizens to death.

Is it perfectly all right for Iran to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon?

I am not telling you guys what to think or do. I am just pointing out the ironies in the points of view you express.

EG: American corporations exploit 3rd world countries without mentioning that all, as far as I can see, industrialized countries have corporations that do the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:47 PM

It is no more justifiable to supply arms to Hezbollah than it is to supply arms to any other sectarian army in the Middle East. Including the biggest one.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM

Exactly!

If the arms trade weren't so profitable, there would be far fewer wars.

Morality vs Profit

You decide.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:57 PM

Yo Little Hawk:


Iran Says Ottawa Trains Terrorists

Stewart Bell, National Post:

"Seyyed Khalil Akbar, chief prosecutor for Iran's Khuzekstan province, accusing Canada and Britain of backing those behind the Ahwaz bombings.

"The Khuzestan bombers were in contact with Britain and Canada and were being backed by them," he was quoted as saying in an address to a gathering of provincial prosecutors.

"The primary individuals responsible for the bombings were Iranian and were supported by foreign forces. They had received training in Britain and Canada and were in contact with these countries via the Internet and mail."

Several Canadians are known members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an armed group fighting to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran. Canada placed the group on its list of outlawed terrorist organizations in May.

Canada has been talking tough with Iran in recent months over human-rights abuses and Tehran's nuclear program. The major irritant remains Iran's refusal to accommodate Ottawa's demands over the death of Zahra Kazemi, 54, a Canadian photographer who was murdered and raped while in Iranian custody in 2003.

The back-and-forth continued yesterday in the House of Commons, where Liberal MP Mario Silva condemned the "continued abuses of the most basic human rights in Iran."

He mentioned the case of two gay teenagers who had been executed. "The reality is that gays and lesbians in Iran are subject to appalling human-rights abuse. These young men lost their lives for being gay. The fact that they were as young as they were meant their execution was in violation of international conventions to which Iran is a signatory."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:19 PM

Attention LH:

"Iran Focus has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centres run by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)."



Dianavan: 17 pages of human right abuses in Iran

"Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 27 – An Iranian court in the north-eastern city of Mashad sentenced a man to have one of his eye's gouged out as punishment for blinding another man during a scuffle, state-run press reported."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:03 PM

Who says I'm supporting Iran????? I think you are simply failing to read what I post with any real attention or comprehension, guys. You're just cherry-picking through it for what you want to focus on and ignoring the other parts.

I mean, really, get serious. I am not supporting Iran. I'm saying that the USA AND Iran BOTH arm people who are out there killing others on their behalf, and that therefore, the USA has nothing in particular to get all righteously indignant about here in regards to what Iran is doing, because the USA does it too, and does it on a bigger scale.

Does Canada field terrorist agents? You betcha! My government, presently under coporate servant Stephen Harper, has a sorry record of assisting the Coporatocracy in its depradations around the world, and is thoroughly guilty of aiding and abetting that sort of thing and causing death and suffering in Third World countries.

So? I am not Canada. I am a person living IN Canada who is expressing an opinion about government activities. I am critical of the US government, the Canadian government, the Israeli government, AND the Iranian governmemt. They ALL aid in and commit terrorism. I disapprove of ALL of them.

You are not attacking ME when you criticize the government of my country. Get that through your thick heads. I am not a fan of the "home team" when the home team behaves badly.

You just don't get it. You think that I have to be FOR Iran if I'm against the USA policy in that area. You could not be more mistaken. I have no reason whatsoever to be FOR Iran. I regard their religious fundamentalism as insane and highly dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM

"They had received training in Britain and Canada..," This is a baseless accusation.

Just because I criticize U.S. strategies in the Middle East, doesn't mean I support the Muslim radicals in Iran anymore than I support the Christian radicals in the U.S.

I do, however, support the right of Iranians to freely elect whoever they choose.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:45 PM

Iran is a country with a lot of nasty things happening in it, and some people trying to stop them happening, and others trying to preserve and promote them.

That's true of a lot of countries, and parallels to the kind of atrocities mentioned can be found within the United States, for example, within living memory.

You can't clean up countries of that kind of thing by making war on them, directly or indirectly.

There are people in Iraq working to get rid of that stuff, just as there were in the USA, in the days of lynchings and some courts that were little better. They aren't helped by threats of war or by terrorist murders, or outsiders who applaud the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:14 PM

The U.S. presence in Iraq is not about social problems, anyway.

Its about controlling the energy resources of the Middle East.

Those resources belong to the people of the Middle East regardless of whether they are Muslim or not.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:14 PM

dianavan - 17 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM

"I do, however, support the right of Iranians to freely elect whoever they choose."

Then its high time that they were actually given a chance to do just that isn't it dianavan. The 12 Old Gits, who do actually run Iran, remember the clown who has declared that he wants Israel "wiped off the map" rules entirely at their pleasure, they banned over 6000 opposition candidates from standing at the last election. Does that happen in the Canada or the US dianavan? I know that Kevin (MGOH) counts the Iranian elections as beng valid even in spite of this anomoly, I sure as hell wouldn't.

Over the past two years there has been suppression of Shia Arabs in the SW of Iran, there were terrorist attacks against the Government in Tehran, we now see similar attacks in the SE of the country. None of this is at the instigation of the US, unlike Hamas and Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. The sooner the reign of the 12 Old Gits is over in Iran the better, the world will be a far better place.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:23 PM

I suspect that you are mistaken, Teribus, about none of it being at the instigation of the US. I am sure the USA does everything it can to covertly assist any and all Iranian protest groups....just as Iran does everything it can to assist the Shia groups that attack people in Iraq or elsewhere.

Really, be realistic. They ALL channel money, arms, and other support to whomever will attack their "enemy"...on the old principle: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I agree that ending the reign of the 12 Old Gits in Iran would be an excellent idea, and would benefit Iran in the long run...(but I don't favor starting another full-scale war with Iran to accomplish that).

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:30 PM

Iranian "democracy" ain't perfect, it's a long way short of perfect. But the election did provide a choice between significantly different akternatives, which is what elections are about, andn tehngivernment in power at the time got defeated.

That couldn't happen in countries like Saudi Arabia, or for that matter Egypt.

"None of this is at the instigation of the US." How do we know that? Because the US government denies it? Because the Iranian government affirms it? I can't see how anyone can put much relience on what either of those two says.

Terrorism inside Iran and threats from outside both help to maimtain the status quo in Iran. In the same way that is true in the case of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:44 PM

It would be downright incredible if the USA were NOT involved in promoting and assisting protest movements and secessionist groups in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:08 PM

If it isn't helping the people planting bombs in Iran that would indicate the USA is acting sensibly in this matter. Is that "downright incredible"? I'd love to think so...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:14 PM

Now you funny, too...

Jus' had to say that 'cause there are some real funny arguments being made here by the usual anons and less-than-anons...

First of all, lets get real here... Which dumbass anon wants to be first 1st dumbass anon on the block to step forward and say that Iran is responsible for killing more Iraqia than the U.S. since Bush and Co. decided that in order to insure holding power that the a new-'n-shiny war would do the trick???

That's the real issue... Not if Iran has made a few arms which have also killed people... It's all about killing folks and guess what, people??? Ya give???

The US of A has not only furnished the bulk of the ammunition but the casulaties... No, make that "bulk-friggin'-plus"... The U.S. is the world's largest arms supplier, bar none... Any of y6ou Bushfeaterheads want to take me on on that one??? Well, in the words of yer heron, "Bring it on"...

So lets get friggin' real here fir just one friggin' minute here: the US of A shouldn't be complainin' 'bout nobody makin' arms... No sir... 'Er mame, fir that matter...

But 'nuff of that 'cause that ain't even an area that the Bushfeatherheads can argue against... But they will because that is why they are featherheads to begin with...

No, lets get to the real life issue-- no, make that problem-- of the Bush foriegn policy which is fatally flawed in old school thinking where conflicts could be solved with war??? This mighta worked a long, long time ago but in this increaingly globalized and tribalized world war doesn't work too well any more... It is archaic an' the world no longer has the luxary of solving conflict thru war...

War is much like what Eintstien's defination of insanity: "Repeating a behavior especting a different result..."

There were alternatives on the table when Bush and Rove decided that they would need a new war to win in '04... Sure, Bush would have been defeated just as he was in 2000 but at least he would have gone down with some respect... Now we are arguin' if he has screwed up enough stuff to go down as the worst president ever...

As fir destabilizin' the Middle East??? Whew... We're way beyond that... Lets doa quick review... He turned his back on the Isreali/Palistinian conflick because Clinton had supported a resolution... He turned his back on Richard Clark because Clinton had been keeping an eye on Osoma's gang, he turned his back on the Saudi Proposal, he turned his back on folks who were tryin' to tell him that the intellegence was wrong in Iraq and now he wants yet another war???

To you folks who support yet another war I'll just say this: I hope that you are not of Christain faith 'cause I have some real bad news fir each and every one of you and it's a short little 4 letter word: Hell!!! Yup, that's what God and Jesus ahve for you...

I cannot fathom how you eevn sleep at night... You folks are evil not because you do nuthing to stop the insanity but because you support it...

I don't spend alot of time here in Mudville these days because the way the anons have been given an unfair edge from the way this joint is structured and I'm sure that alot of you evil anons will indignantly jump all over me just like yer hero sends bomber pilots to drop bombs on innocent kids and women but to all of you cowardly anons: you are as chikenshit as yer friggin' hero and your kind will one day be defeated by folks who have a better understanding of the real world...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:18 AM

"Now that the world is beginning to realize that Bush and company are the real enemy, what can be done about it? He can do alot more damage in the next two years. I think GWB is a sociopath (he hates us all) and plans to leave the world on the brink of disaster when he leaves office. We will be so busy trying avert an all out nuclear catastrophe that he will never be tried for war crimes.

Thats not a conspiracy, thats a crime."

Now tell us the same sort of details about Iran. Does Iran seek to destabilize any countries? I their leader a sociopath? Does he hate you because you are not a Muslim? Does he plan leave the world on the brink of an all out nuclear disaster before he leaves office? Will he ever be tried for war crimes? Does he believe the Holocaust never happened?

What do you propose to do about Iran other than talk?

"I hope the documents that were siezed, point directly at the U.S." Another mean spirited attack.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 02:40 AM

Hmmm - I never thought that Dickey was a Jewish name but then again, neither was Martin Gibson.

Having said that, I do believe you have an agenda, Dickey. Its based on fear and hatred and it is definitely mean-spirited, defensive and paranoid. If you are always looking for an enemy, I'm sure you will find one.

As Noam Chomsky says about western media and Ahmadinejad's remarks,

"...they love when Ahmadinejad says that Israel shouldn't exist, but they don't like it when Khamenei right afterwards says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine. As far as I'm aware, it never got reported. Actually you could find Khamenei's more conciliatory positions in the Financial Times, but not here. And it's repeated by Iranian diplomats but that's no good. The Arab League proposal calls for normalization of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of the two-state settlement which has been blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years."

Thirty years is a long time, Martin (I mean Dickey) and its time to get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: kendall
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

Bobert, as I understand it, anonymous posting is now forbidden, at least in the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:41 AM

Well, that's real nice to hear, Capt'n... Maybe I'll stop in more often..

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:55 PM

I could make some sort of mean spirited remark like "I didn't know Dianavan was a Nazi" But that would be her ploy to discredit someone personally rather that defend her statements.

Either she thinks Iran should be destabilized or not. Evidently she does not which leads one to believe she is not really concerned about human rights abuses after all.

It seems to me that Islamic extremisim is acceptable to her.

Remember the movie about the woman that managed to escape Iran? I think Sally Field was the lead.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 03:58 PM

Either she thinks Iran should be destabilized or not. Evidently she does not which leads one to believe she is not really concerned about human rights abuses after all

"Destabilising" countries doesn't make things better for human rights, it just makes them worse. That applies whether the country concerned is Saudi Arabia (with an even worse record than Iran), Iran, Iraq, Israel or the United States. The result is that if there are human rights abuses there already things just get worse. If there aren't the result is that human rights are liable to come under attack from the authorities.

The position of women and religious minorities such as Christians in Iraq, for example, is far worse than it was before regime change.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 04:12 PM

No country has any business destablizing any other country. If they do so, they do it for their own gain, not to help people in that country.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

Iran is a sworn enemy to any philosofy[sic] that is not their[sic] own.

Gee, kinda sounds like the Good Ol' U. S. of A.'s historical MO, don't it? And 'specially under the current government.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:47 PM

Yes, the USA has been fighting against all philosophies not their own since....oh, about 1780. ;-) It seems to be a common failing of most empires to do just that. They ALL think that their answer is the only answer.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:51 PM

Human Rights???

The US leads all *developed nations" in per capita poverty, infant mortality, incarceration rates and capital punishment...

"Before you accuse me
Take a look at yourself..."

Now add to that over a half million Iraqis have been killed by the US military...

Yeah, if anyone wants to carry out a debate of human rights violations, better be prepared to answer quite a few questions about the US's policies...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:12 AM

"No country has any business destablizing any other country. If they do so, they do it for their own gain, not to help people in that country."

So this is why Iran seeks to destabilize Lebanon and Iraq.

Bobert: How is that "per capita poverty" number arrived at?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:23 AM

Agreed, Guest. I am not simply opposed to the USA and Israel destabilizing other countries, I am also opposed to Iran destabilizing other countries. As I say, they all do it for their own gain, not to help people in those countries. Some of the leaders may, of course, imagine that they are helping someone, just like some of their soldiers do. I wouldn't be surprised if both George Bush and Mr Ahmadinejad are under the false impression they are helping people when they contribute to war and bloodshed in another country... ;-)

It is true, Guest, that the USA is falling behind many other developed nations when it comes to providing health care, a good average standard of living for its citizens, and a reasonably low crime rate. Canada, Australia, Japan, and most of western Europe are all doing better in those areas.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 02:21 AM

What Bobert says about our trailing other nations is easy to arrive at look at the international stats, also look at how far behind we are on infant mortality rates. we compete with 3rd world nations but that's not of importance here.

It's always struck me strange that people don't want to put themselves in the shoes of others. I can just imagine how Iranians feel about us & not at all feel as if they would think that if only we could see things their way how much better off we'd be. Why wouldn't they, they are no less intelligent than we, probably no less religious either. They probably swallow as much shit as we do when it comes to what the governments are feeding all of us. Except we are looking to find a way to control the mid their nationas well as the surrounding areas.
De-stablilize Iran, we'd love to run it if they'd let us. We have no business at all being in the Mid East any more that they have being here & until they attempt an invasion we have no reason to be setting foot on foriegn soil.

What's so hard about that. We aren't there for the good of the Iraqi people, we aren't there to stop them from invading us, we aren't here because of WMD or the unfact they could've nuked us in 45 minutes & we aren't there to bring in a new system of government, unless you think they're better off with civil war than they were under Saddam. We're in the business for ourselves & haven't got the right. It's so much in our business intrests that we often end up spliting nations in half just so that we can do business. We don't mind at all toppling nations for our on interests, we are neither saints nor saviours, we are a nation of corporations & will proceed like a corporation using tactics of mergers, spying, hostile takeovers, downsizing, reorginaizing, bankrupties, etc. What makes anyone think that we give a flying fuck what happens to those that aren't our allies when we care little enough for our so called friends, which in reality ever since WWII have become associates that trade favors in benifit of commerce. The only down side to the way we operate is that we can't function as well in the ability to govern for & by the people as well when we run it like a corporation, the people suffer as well as those we roll over. "THERE IS NO LONGER A UNION", when government runs like a business, there is no longer a stewart of & for the people, there is no longer a corporate interest in those that make it funtion except at the high end where the management is raping & abusing that which feeds it. "We ARE WATCHING OUR GOVERNMENT EAT ITSELF" & when it's done don't be schocked & awed by the amount of shit it's gonna leave behind.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

Well said, Barry.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:59 PM

ironically, when the US ramps up its rhetoric against Iran,
oil traders look at the risks and suddenly the price of oil goes up
(and guess who benefits? Iran. It needs the hard cash from oil exports to maintain its economy. Last fall when oil prices came down it significantly hurt the Iranian economy. The US would be better off toning down the rhetoric.

and maybe if the 2$trillion that the IRaq war costs the US economy were spent developing alternative energy, the consequent drop in oil revenues would do more to destabilize Iran than any military strike.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 08:02 PM

"don't be schocked & awed by the amount of shit it's gonna leave behind."

... cause there's an awful lot of shit for it to eat anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:30 PM

Bobert: How is that "per capita poverty" number arrived at?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM

If Iran starts selling it's oil in currency other than the standard US dollar like that upstart Irqa did we will see a fast            de-stabilizion if not invasion happening. But for all of Iran's chess playing that's the one move they won't make because "IT IS" the one move we won't tolerate.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:22 AM

petr's comments:

Well that would assume that the capitalists wouldn't make more profit if the price goes up anyway - and they run the show anyway - they are happy with things the way they are - unless their hand is forced - by things like trying to remove the US Dollar as the world currency...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 09:02 AM

I notice, Dickey, you don't comment on or query the rest of that sentence of Bobert "The US leads all *developed nations" in ... infant mortality, incarceration rates and capital punishment."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 09:22 AM

I am just curious MGH. I like facts rather than generalizations. I am a sponge for facts.

I was going to ask all three, one at a time so the answer to each would be clearer.

Later on I was going to ask how incarceration rates is a negative.

And I want to know if the infant mortality inclues abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM

true having the US dollar as the oil trading currency is one
way the US empire can 'tax' the rest of the world. one of the reasons the price of oil went up in recent years is that the US $ actually lost value.

but Im not sure what you mean with your comment about 'capitalists'- it is in the USs interests to have lower oil prices - it helps their economy and hurts Irans.

(In much the same way that if the US had been successful in its Iraq war. and by success I mean removing Saddam, stabilizing the country and installing or allowing a US friendly govt. A friendly US govt in a stable Iraq could dump more oil on the market thanks to Iraqs vast reserves of easy oil - and this would ultimately make OPEC irrelevant).

Another thing that could make opec irrelevant would be a car that get 60mpg - and it might cost far less than the $2trillion the Iraq war cost.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Peace
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 02:05 PM

"U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran"

But where will the horses live?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:46 PM

I was going to ask how incarceration rates is a negative.

Logically speaking, if high incarceration accompanied very low crime statistics it might be argued as a price worth paying. But sky high incarceration rates and at the same time high rates for criminal offences ... That's something else.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM

"it is in the USs interests to have lower oil prices - it helps their economy "

Nonsense - if that were really the case, then all efforts to minimise the use of oil would be made - this would lower the demand, and thus drop the price - one of the basic tenets of capitalism - supply and demand.

It is in the interests of ALL those who profit from dealing in a commodity to have the retail prices as high as possible - for the same percentage of markup, they make higher sums of profit.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:27 PM

Teribus: "At no time has the US ever threatened Iran, any sabre rattling that has been done has been from the Iranian side. "

I presume you mean, 'recently' - although Bush did mention Iran quite some time back as part of the "Axis of Evil" (i.e not the "Allies of Evil") with all the veiled threat that implies. However, if you are willing to stretch back a bit, you'll find the US helped install the Shah back in the 50s. Under the Shah, Iran - though like all countries it had its human rights problems - became a byword for disregard for human rights. Torture was rampant under the Shah's secret police: men literally toasted alive on electrified beds, for instance. Under the Islamic Revolution not a whole pile changed - the jails filled with different people - some of them former torturers themselves, the toturers becoming the tortured - but the abuse of human rights continued. The main difference is that this was now regarded by the West as 'bad' repression since it was being carried out by a regime unfriendly to the West. (The same happened more in less in Iraq, twice over, if we include Abu Gharib). However, the Iran of today is not the same as 30 years ago, some progress has been made. Executions? as if the USA didn't have any.... and moreover, in Iran according to some posts here, people are made to watch (I don't agree with that, it dehumanises tham) but in the USA people volunteer to watch.....hmmmm.

During the Iran - Iraq war, the USA most definitely took the Iraqi side (even with the blip of Irangate) against Iran. So did Saudi Arabia. But both Saudi Arabia and Saddam were then western allies, so they COULDN'T possibly be terrorists / have a dismal human rights record. This was in spite of the fact that the West knew well about Saddam's regime even then. Of course, just like Iran, his regime only became the target for 'civilsation' once he went rogue and invaded Kuwait.

The US moved its carriers into the Sraits of Hormuz to intimidate the Iranians, and then there was the shooting down of Iran Air flight IR665 by a US aircraft carrier, killing 289 civilian passengers. The captain lamely claimed he thought it was an Iranian Tomcat, a story without much credit to it. Some say this incident led directly to the Lockerbie bombing. But whereas the suspects of Lockerbie were eventually handed over for trial, the Captain who was responsible for shooting down IR665 instead received a commendation.

I'm not attempting to say Iran is perfect - far from it. But before Bush or Blair etc., go prancing round talking tosh about concepts they don't even understand themselves, such as 'democracy' and 'human rights' (ha!), and 'civilisation' they should put their own houses in order. Even if you believe your enemy is the devil, you can't fight the devil by becoming as evil as him.

It reminds me of a movie I saw on telly the other night "8 mm" It was a fairly stupid movie with Nicholas Cage acting the unconvincing hard man, who just has to throw away his gun at the end because he can't resist trying to physically smash in the face of his nemises. What struck me was - in spite of the thorough evil of the baddies deeds - was the sheer pointlessness of Cage's revenge. One character - played by Gandolfini - ends up getting beaten up by Cage. Gandolfini is tied up so he can't hit back, and Cage vents all his fury on him. He doen't want to kill Gandolfini, just keep him alive to inflict endless torture, retribution and humiliation on him. Despite this, it seems to bring Cage no satisfaction or relief, nor does it bring back the girl Gandolfini's gang killed. Indeed it all seemed quite pathetic in the end. No retribution would leave either Cage or the audience feeling quite satisfied and it only seemed to dehumanise Cage as much as his victim. No winners, I felt it was one point for the devil and none for God.
A good deal of US reaction to terror - especially in the White House - seems to be inspired by the same kind of Hollywood desire for vengeance, though in the end it just generates more evil. There are other, better ways to defeat terror as I've said before, and what's happening at present simply isn't one of them.

BTW - Iran is not the only one in the region with a finger in Lebanon's backside (and I don't mean Syria).

I'll leave the last quote to Gandhi, who, when asked what he thought of western civilisation succintly replied "I think it would be a good idea"

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:49 PM

here we disagree foolestroupe..
now youre speaking nonsense..

the interests of those who SUPPLY the COMMODITY are to have prices as high as possible. And while the petroleum industry makes has been making money hand over fist they only buy it and refine it. And the Petroleum industry as powerful as it is - is not the United States.

by your own logic, when oil prices are high the US benefits.

was that the case during OPECs embargo back in the 74 (after the West backed Israel in the Yom Kippur war)?

or in 79 when the SHah was overthrown? or in 90-91
each time whenever oil prices go up due to crisis in the middle east theres usually recession in the West.

and yes supply and demand does have something to do with it
the wests response to the oil embargo in 74 was to develop non-opec oil, north sea, alberta, texas, etc. bring in conservation, higher fuel efficiency standards, lower the speed limit on the highways. etc.

it wasnt until the mid80s when the Saudis finally figured it out the power of the market.
They increased production, flooded the market causing a glut, prices dropped - and put a lot of the non-opec oilsuppliers out of business. (It has been said that the loss of hard cash from the weak oil trade in Russia actually helped bring along their collapse)

and by the same token it helped Russia recently - theyre flush with money now, and the same goes for Iran whenever oil goes up theyre making added millions daily which goes to prop up much of their economy. However the US is not an oil producer it is a consumer
which is why Bush is making his points about Oil Addiction and reducing foreign oil dependency.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM

"by your own logic, when oil prices are high the US benefits."

I only said that certain capitalists benefit.
Screw the rest.


"in the interests of ALL those who profit from dealing in a commodity "

Why should THEY care about the rest of the economy if THEY are making money? Not all 'capitalists' lost out during 'economic depressions' and that includes many more events than just the well known 1930s...

Suckers who just buy the end product, at whatever price, are by definition NOT dealing in that commodity.


You seem to be confusing 'Capitalism' - which is by intent personally and individually selfish, with 'Socialism/Communism' which is by alleged design 'for the benefit of society as a whole'.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:55 PM

hey, I grew up in a socialist/communist country I know plenty about how it works and just who benefits, (the cadres)
but capitalism and communism are beside the point here.

looking back at your quote Foolestroupe.
(I dont see anywhere that you said CERTAIN CAPITALISTS benefit)

I said it is in the US interests to have lower oil prices- it helps their economy.

you said NONSENSE.

I pointed out that each time prices went up due to crisis it caused recessions in the west.

also your comments about the basic tenets of capitalism - supply and demand - ie. the US would do whatever it could to minimize demand and thus lower price ...

..ignore the basic concept of PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND. ie. the demand for a good is inelastic if demand does not change with the price.
and oil is considered INELASTIC, people still continue to drive because there arent many alternatives. (over the long run they may switch from guzzlers to economy cars but that takes time)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:54 PM

Bobert: according to statistics, the UK has a higher poverty rate than the US.

But you claim "The US leads all *developed nations" in per capita poverty, infant mortality, incarceration rates and capital punishment..."

How is that poverty figured in the US? You do believe the facts you are presenting and that you do know they are accurate I presume.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:16 PM

But for those in the know - far, far better to be poor in the UK than poor in the USA - True?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM

I don't beleive the stats are true but does Bobert?

Fact is when you look at the bottom of the chart it says each country figures their poverty level different. So how can you compare one country to another?

Same way with death rate and infant mortality.

If a country has less roads and autos, they have less auto fatalities. In the US about 40,000 people die from auto accidents each year. How about auto accidents in the other contries?

In switzerland a baby is not considered born unless they are not 30 CM long at birth. If they are 29.9 CM ;ong and die, it is not part of the infant wortality stat.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: kendall
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:20 AM

The Gulf of Tonkin non incident.
Watergate
Iran-Contra
Arms for hostages
WMDs

Tell me, why should I believe one word from ANY head of any government?

As far as freedom in Iran goes, I was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were interviewing citizens of Iran. They are not happy with runaway inflation, and they know it's their president's fault even though he blames it on our sanctions.
His days are numbered. All we have to do is tighten the sanctions.

By the way, Mr. Bush is trying to get through congress a bill that would force the car manufacturers to increase their fuel ecomomy, and business is fighting it.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:26 AM

"Now add to that over a half million Iraqis have been killed by the US military..."

Sorry, Bobert- EVEN if we were to accept your bogus 650,000 dead as real, the best estimate by the UN and Iraqi sources is that less than 25% of the Iraqis killed are killed by ALL coalition forces. THAT would be well under 175,000.

Please try to make some approxiomation of reality in your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM

those people are dead only because of one reason - George Bush.
haggling over numbers does not make him less responsible.

an arrogant, incompetent administration - wasted lives, and resources
and theyve lost. no surge is going to make any difference.

and regardless of what they do Iran will be the big beneficiary.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:23 PM

The end result of this war will be an Iranian-dominated Eastern Iraq. Iran will thus accomplish two long-held aims: Conquering a long-standing enemy, and gaining a dominant position in the Mideast. To think that Iran hasn't fomented violence and dissension in Iraq to in the last four years in an effort to achieve these goals is naive, to put it extremely mildly.

As Eastern Iraq was conquered and then vacated by coalition forces, official positions in the police, administration, and military that had been previously held by Ba'ath Party members, were filled by Shiite Iraqi expatriates, trained in Iran for this or a similar eventuality. Coalition forces, after Baghdad's fall, returned to find Iranian-trained Shiite militia forces already in control in these areas.
Really, I don't blame Iran for these actions, which were purely in its self-interest. Neither do I feel any animosity toward the Bush administration for declaring Iran complicit in the Iraqi sectarian war that is going on now. They are complicit and have been from the start. I feel animosity toward the Bush Administration for their decision to prosecute this war in the first place, and for their incompetence in its execution.
Anyone who thinks that the US has the ability or political will to prosecute a war in Iran with its hands tied in Iraq and Afghanistan is either ignorant of the real situation in the mideast, or suffering from some fairly severe paranoid delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:40 PM

Bobert:

I am still waiting for an explanation of your "facts" that you posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:18 AM

Dickey - Learn how to google:

http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/ggr346/text/chapters/ch3.html

then scroll down the page to:

from: "We're Number One: Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New World Order" by Andrew L. Shapiro, Vintage, NY 1992

or you can try:

http://www.well.com/user/sfflier/rain-progress-practicing.html

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:56 PM

Or you can try

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line

Perhaps you can explain why America leads in the number of people living in poverty when it is 12% in the US, 15.9% in Canada,15% in South Korea and 17% in the UK.

Evidently Bobert can't.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

"Perhaps you can explain why America leads in the number of people living in poverty when it is 12% in the US, 15.9% in Canada,15% in South Korea and 17% in the UK. "

Obviously Bobert is using total numbers rather than per capita.

Unless he is thinking that Canadians, South Koreans, and citizens of the UK are not "real" people, and don't count as much as Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:16 PM

"How many people were poor in 2004?

In 2004, 12.7 percent of all persons lived in poverty. In 1993 the poverty rate was 15.1 percent. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. Poverty has risen in each of the last four years.

How has poverty changed over time?

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. Since then, it has risen each year, to 12.7 percent in 2004."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

To do with Canada, yer numbers are fulla shit.

"Basically poverty in Canada has been under-reported by the equivalent of a city the size ofWinnipeg," said Peter Bleyer, president of the Canadian Council on Social Development. The number living on what Statistics Canada defines as low incomes was 3.5 million in 2002, 628,000 more than previously reported, he said, noting that pushed the proportion of those living on lowincomes to 11.6 per cent from the 9.5 per cent previously thought."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

You know better, BB. The other guy is an idiot, but you aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:23 PM

Peace,

I did not check the numbers presented, merely postulated as to why Bobert had stated what he did.

I am at fault for not verifying the correct numbers- but I think many here are equally guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:27 PM

No problem. I was surprised to see that from you because while I disagree with many of the posts you make, they are always the result of good research and I subsequently have the greatest respect for you.

That aside, Canada should not have the poverty level it has. It IS a national disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

"Among findings cited in the study:

Between 1997 and 2003, Canada's economy was the fastest-growing among G-8 countries, increasing 55 per cent in real terms.
Federal spending stands at 11 per cent of the economy, down from 16 per cent in 1993-94 - well below historic averages. Recent increases in spending have not offset the deep cuts of the 90s.
Only 38 per cent of unemployed workers receive government benefits, down from 75 per cent in the early 90s.
More than 1.7 million households live on less than $20,000 a year, and most are precariously housed. They do not own their own homes and spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent.
Cuts to post-secondary education and deregulation of fees have doubled or tripled tuition costs.
Despite repeated promises, there is no national child care program. "
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/14/canada_poverty20050914.html#skip300x250


"Statistics Canada sends off letters stating that its low-income cut-off (LICO) figures are not a measure of poverty, but of income inequality. Despite this, many media companies and poverty activists use the LICOs as the country's "unofficial" poverty line.

The LICO counts the number of Canadians who spend 20 percentage points more of their gross income on food, shelter and clothing than the average Canadian. So, as of 2006, if a family spends more than 63 per cent of its gross income on those necessities, it's below the LICO.

As of 2004, 15.5 per cent of Canadians were below the low-income cut-off. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/poverty-line.html

"The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development uses another relative measure of poverty. It takes all of the after-tax incomes in a particular country and finds the income such that half the people in the country make more and half make less. That's the median after-tax income. Anyone who makes less than half of that median income is considered poor. By that measure, Canada's poverty rate in 2000 was 10.3 per cent, close to the OECD average. In the U.S., the rate was 17.1 per cent, in Mexico it was 20.3 per cent and in Denmark, it was 4.3 per cent. Statistics Canada uses a similar calculation, called the Low Income Measures, which uses pre-tax incomes. "

"Another way to measure poverty is in absolute terms: how many people make less than what is needed to survive or lead a decent life?

Human Resources and Development Canada developed such a measurement, called the Market Basket Measure, based on the cost of goods and services needed for a typical family of four — two parents and two children — to eat a nutritious diet, buy clothing for work and social occasions, house themselves in their community and pay for other necessary expenditures, such as furniture, public transportation and entertainment. For 2002, using the MBM, the incidence of low income among Canadian families with children was 15.4 percent. The MBM is considered a more precise reflection of differences in cost of living from region to region. "

"Nipissing University economics professor Christopher Sarlo developed another absolute measure of poverty for a 1992 study called Poverty in Canada. Sarlo defines poverty as lacking the means for the basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter and clothing, and criticizes the use of LICOs as a poverty line.

"At about $34,000 per year for a family of four in a large urban area, the LICO measure is too high to be believable as a threshold of impoverishment," he wrote in his 2001 report Measuring Poverty in Canada.

The first version of his Basic Needs Index put the poverty rate at just four per cent. It was criticized for its frugality, though: Sarlo's weekly food budget for an elderly woman was $25. A revised version of the index was released in 2001, including such things as out-of-pocket medical expenses, and put the basic needs poverty line at $19,962 for a family of four, averaged across Canada. That study put the poverty rate at eight per cent. "

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:56 PM

Dickey - Your source was from the CIA World factbook, 1992.

Other people, cite other sources and other years.

Doesn't really matter who leads in poverty statistics, nobody in the U.S., Britain or Canada should be living in poverty. There is no excuse, especially when CEO's can move to Dubai to avoid paying taxes.

Greed is unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:59 PM

But the question still remains, why should there be any poverty in a country as wealthy as the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

My point is not that The Uk or Canada or SK has more poor people than the US.

My point is that poverty is measured differently in different countries and comparing one country to another or stating X country is the worst is a red herring, a wedge issue, a straw man issue. A diversionary tactic used to prove some other point that someone is trying to claim without factual evidence.


The fact that Bobert won't defend his "Facts" indicates that he does not believe them himself. He just uses them to support his assertion about
human rights in Iran compared to human rights in the US.

"Now add to that over a half million Iraqis have been killed by the US military"

Another Straw Man. Is the number accurate and how many of the real were actually killed by the military?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM

The point is, Dickie, that when you add the number of U.S. citizens to the number of Iraqis impoverished by the invasion + the number of soldiers and civilians who have died as a result; any excuse is a lame excuse.

Compare that with the increasing incomes of the highest 10% in the nation and its pretty obvious that something is very wrong with the decisions currently being made in the Whitehouse.

Its plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:06 PM

*The US leads all *developed nations" in per capita poverty, infant mortality, incarceration rates and capital punishment.*


One of the first major initiatives by President Bill Clinton was the Omnibus Crime Bill, signed into law in September 1994. This legislation implemented mandatory sentencing, authorized $10.5 billion to fund prison construction that mandatory sentencing would help require, loosened the rules on allowing federal asset forfeiture teams to keep and spend the money their operations made from seizing assets, and provided federal monies for local police.

http://dunwalke.com/10_Clinton_Administration.htm

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. seeks to de-stabilize Iran
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

"Now add to that over a half million Iraqis have been killed by the US military"

Is the number accurate and how many of the real number were actually killed by the military?

This is a straw man issue.