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

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:23 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 - 02:21 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: 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 - 02:16 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

Well said, Barry.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

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