Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[egslim]

I don't think the reason it continues under Obama is that they are unaware that sanctions are bad and trade is good. All they have to do is make some very sane changes that are quite clearly outlined, Obama repeated this days ago.

The US has no business telling Cubans how to run their country. It's their country.

Especially after the US supported Batista, who overthrew the government and installed a dictatorship.

You're seriously asking me what threat Iran poses to the world?

Yes. And I expect you to back it up with facts.

Are you saying it's tough luck for the North Korean people?

Unfortunately, yes. Just like it's tough luck for people with terminal cancer, but I can't help them either.

But the policy of engagement I advocate is more likely to improve the plight of the North Korean people than their continued isolation under current US policy.

You think the history of the world's greatest global superpower compared to a couple of backwards totalitarian nations is evidence of that conspiracy at all? I detect several fallacies.

Stop attributing strawmen to me.

I merely stated the US is far more militarily aggressive than either Iran or North Korea, and backed it up with figures. And yes, military power makes militarily aggressive. In the words of Albright, 'what good is having this great military if we can't use it?' Which is why a dumb, hawkish POTUS worries me infinitely more than a dumb, hawkish President of Luxembourg.

Wow I never thought of it like that before! Is that really the secret to peace? It makes so much sense

Meanwhile the US government keeps meddling in other countries, while it cuts funding for domestic programs that improve life for Americans.

The government came close to shutting down over negotiations to cut $38B of domestic spending, while $100B+ for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan sailed through.

If you're sarcastic because my statement is so obviously true, why does the US government do the complete opposite?

They supported Hosni <snipped the irrelevant stuff>

I'll make it short and simple for you. The only thing that differentiates those countries the US dislikes from those the US likes is if they accept US hegemony or not.

Countries that accept US hegemony are allowed to abuse human rights. They're even allowed to be militarily aggressive towards countries who refuse US hegemony, witness Israel and Georgia.

I never denied the incentives existed, I've been clamouring for clear evidence or an ironclad case for these kinds of accusations being true in specific cases.

So you admit the incentives exist. Do you deny they have effect? Because one of the few things economists agree on is that incentives matter.

Those are radically different considerations from anything I was talking about. I wouldn't argue against these incentives existing and dubious estimates occuring, and have not.

Ok, so then please stop contributing CT-positions I don't hold to me. But if you agree these dubious estimates occur, do you also agree they affect US policy?

 

[Virus]

Their form of internal government is their business.

And Iran is more democratic than for example Saoudi Arabia. In addition, the latter just went into Bahrain to suppress the popular revolt there.

What threat does Iran pose to the world? Iran lost 1 million people during the US-supported Iraqi invasion of their country. Despite supporting the US in the aftermath of the WTC-attacks, Iran was labelled as part of the Axis of Evil. Iran has far more reason to feel threatened by the US than any other country has to feel threatened by Iran.

Apology for theocratic fascist terrorism.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

egslim,

Strange that you say the US supported saddam, because Iran was the country that used American hardware (arms to Iran anyone ), while Iraq was mainly using Russian, Chinese and French hardware.

 

[egslim]

Strange that you say the US supported saddam, because Iran was the country that used American hardware (arms to Iran anyone ), while Iraq was mainly using Russian, Chinese and French hardware.

Are you serious?

The US sold a lot of hardware to Iran when it was under the Shah. Of course theocratic Iran used those weapons when Iraq invaded.

And the fact is the US supported Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran, mainly by supplying intelligence. Just because Saddam got most of his weapons from other places does not change that.

There is irony in the US supporting a mainly Soviet-armed dictator in his war of aggression against a country equiped with American hardware, but that's what happened.

 

[IDB87]

And the fact is the US supported Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran, mainly by supplying intelligence. Just because Saddam got most of his weapons from other places does not change that.

Also sold him helicopters which he used as gunships, mostly against the Kurds.

Yeah, the irony is pretty palpable.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

and the Americans gave far more assistance to Iran with TOW Rockets. The policy was to ensure a stalemate between the two powers, not to support an Iraqi conquest of Iran.

 

[egslim]

and the Americans gave far more assistance to Iran with TOW Rockets. The policy was to ensure a stalemate between the two powers, not to support an Iraqi conquest of Iran.

That's news to me. Do you have evidence for that assertion?

As far as I'm aware, the only weapons theocratic Iran received through the US were those in exchange for release of the hostages.

Other than that, the US supported only Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

[NWO Sentryman]

yet the US was warning Iran pre embassy crisis that Iraq was about to invade.

 

[JihadJane]

lol wut?

You identify something as a conspiracy and then ask me to prove that it is a conspiracy.

If they intentionally lied about the war in order to turn a profit, that's a conspiracy. Not everything is a conspiracy, but this is no valid criticism against me, since I don't make this mistake, as you obviously cannot show or quote, at all, what a waste of time...

Conspiring behind closed doors is the business of government. It's normal behavior, not an aberration.

The story being told by that article isn't one of exploitation, see the last sentence.

namely:

"But at least someone will have begun releasing the wealth trapped in Afghanistan's stones."

i.e. a justification to exploit Afghan's mineral riches. What's good about that? Whose bank account is that "wealth" going to land in? Why not just leave it "trapped in the stones" rather than ripping it all out now? Perhaps the Afghans will need those minerals in three hundred years time, or three thousand years time.

That's your interpretation. So make a case for it because that "connection" is only being made in your mind at the moment. I asked you for the evidence of a crime here.

If you cannot, for example, see the criminality of what has happened in the USA, right under your nose, in the financial industry, you are not going to able to see it in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away.

You're taking issue with my use of the phrase with no rational basis when I clearly was not using it to malign anyone and I've seen you arguing with people about being called a truther or a CT here before so let it go you had your say.

What made you reach this erroneous conclusion then:

Oh that's right, you're a conspiracy theorist who finds the terms offensive.

Why would you assume that I'd find the terms offensive?

I take issue with your use of the terms as supposedly useful analytical tools.

]and I've seen you arguing with people about being called a truther or a CT here before so let it go you had your say.

Link? I don't argue with people about it. I simply ask them for evidence to back up their misguided assertions and, so far, no one has come up with any. Perhaps you can be the first.

 

[Joey McGee]

The US has no business telling Cubans how to run their country. It's their country.

Especially after the US supported Batista, who overthrew the government and installed a dictatorship.

whether or not they have the "right" doesn't much change whether or not they are going to do what they think is right, namely prevent an insane government from ruining the lives of more people. Is this somehow a case that the US is being evil in this situation? I am not convinced.

Yes. And I expect you to back it up with facts.

If you think Iran poses no danger to the world I think we have bigger problems to contend with than facts.

Unfortunately, yes. Just like it's tough luck for people with terminal cancer, but I can't help them either.

But the policy of engagement I advocate is more likely to improve the plight of the North Korean people than their continued isolation under current US policy.

Wait your policy of what? A foreign policy that is as fantastical as market fundamentalism? Yeah the people that won't be starving to death thanks to the WFP are happy you aren't in charge of anything. As the Economist put it hours ago "Their government is perfectly capable of using starvation as a bargaining chip. But neither that, nor the likelihood that some food aid would be stolen, are excuses for giving nothing. They are reasons to try to negotiate decent monitoring arrangements"

Stop attributing strawmen to me.

I was talking about permanent war for profit fed by lies which is a conspiracy theory. If you talk it down to being about subconscious biases in humans that sometimes leads to slightly skewed data like contract costs, you're no longer addressing this theory.

I merely stated the US is far more militarily aggressive than either Iran or North Korea, and backed it up with figures. And yes, military power makes militarily aggressive. In the words of Albright, 'what good is having this great military if we can't use it?' Which is why a dumb, hawkish POTUS worries me infinitely more than a dumb, hawkish President of Luxembourg.

So the evidence that the world's superpower gets into it a lot is evidence that all of those conflicts were immoral, preventable or insane?

Meanwhile the US government keeps meddling in other countries, while it cuts funding for domestic programs that improve life for Americans.

The government came close to shutting down over negotiations to cut $38B of domestic spending, while $100B+ for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan sailed through.

If you're sarcastic because my statement is so obviously true, why does the US government do the complete opposite?

It's sarcasm because it's the most easily made criticism which happens to also mean nothing. It's such a simplistic, cartoonish idea. Yeah everything would be fine if we just picked up and went home. Are you looking forward to voting for Ron Paul?

I'll make it short and simple for you. The only thing that differentiates those countries the US dislikes from those the US likes is if they accept US hegemony or not.

Countries that accept US hegemony are allowed to abuse human rights. They're even allowed to be militarily aggressive towards countries who refuse US hegemony, witness Israel and Georgia.

So is there context nuance, and perhaps yes even some self-interested inconsistency in how the U.S. treats other counties? Obviously it's the global superpower juggling dozens of problem countries. It's just sad to paint this picture without the nuance and context. Yes if the U.S. wasn't a big greedy moron we'd all be in a worldwide hippie commune at this point.

So you admit the incentives exist. Do you deny they have effect? Because one of the few things economists agree on is that incentives matter.

If the incentives are skewing people subconsciously, that is one thing. Intentional conspiracies are another. Telling a narrative or selling a story in regards to some of these questions is unhelpful, if you can prove a crime that would be interesting.

Ok, so then please stop contributing CT-positions I don't hold to me. But if you agree these dubious estimates occur, do you also agree they affect US policy?

Do subconscious cognitive biases affect policy? Obviously. Is a manufactured permanent war for profit a CT? Yes, so stop trying to make my problems with the CTs out there seem like a misunderstanding of real issues which I obviously have no problem exploring.

 

[Joey McGee]

Conspiring behind closed doors is the business of government. It's normal behavior, not an aberration.

lol wut? So because conspiracy theories happen we shouldn't call them conspiracy theories?

namely:

"But at least someone will have begun releasing the wealth trapped in Afghanistan's stones."

i.e. a justification to exploit Afghan's mineral riches. What's good about that? Whose bank account is that "wealth" going to land in? Why not just leave it "trapped in the stones" rather than ripping it all out now? Perhaps the Afghans will need those minerals in three hundred years time, or three thousand years time.

Very poor attempt at proving the U.S. is acting immorally here.

If you cannot, for example, see the criminality of what has happened in the USA, right under your nose, in the financial industry, you are not going to able to see it in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away.

I asked you what extent is the crime of the banking scandal? Exactly who are the people, names, companies, who should be in jail?

What made you reach this erroneous conclusion then:

Why would you assume that I'd find the terms offensive?

I take issue with your use of the terms as supposedly useful analytical tools.

You tried to spin an insane lie that Blair only talked about the "oil conspiracy theory" because he was trying to smear inquisitors. Since what he was defending against actually was a conspiracy theory, this entire conversation has been a regrettable waste of time because you will never concede this.

 

[egslim]

yet the US was warning Iran pre embassy crisis that Iraq was about to invade.

Evidence/sources?

Because as far as I know, Iraq had no intention to invade Iran before the revolution/embassy crisis.

(Though before revolution Iran under the Shah was a US ally, so back then it would have made sense for the US to warn Iran.)

It sounds like you're either misinformed, or making things up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

 

[egslim]

whether or not they have the "right" doesn't much change whether or not they are going to do what they think is right, namely prevent an insane government from ruining the lives of more people. Is this somehow a case that the US is being evil in this situation? I am not convinced.

'Prevent an insane government from ruining the lives of more people', by embargoing the country into the ground economically?
If that's the US government's motive, they're a lot more insane than Castro ever was. Embargoes always hit the people harder than the government.

If you think Iran poses no danger to the world I think we have bigger problems to contend with than facts.

I said 'Iran has far more reason to feel threatened by the US than any other country has to feel threatened by Iran.' If you disagree with that, show me which country is more threatened by Iran than Iran by the US. And back it up with facts.

The US invaded two of its neighbours, labelled Iran as part of the Axis of Evil which made it a target for forced regime-change, and put the country under heavy economic embargo.

There is no country in the world that is under even close to similar threat from Iran.

Wait your policy of what?

Peace treaty with and diplomatic recognition of North Korea. I haven't said anything about giving them food-aid.

So the evidence that the world's superpower gets into it a lot is evidence that all of those conflicts were immoral, preventable or insane?

It's evidence that the US is militarily aggressive, and not a peaceful country by any reasonable standard. Which is what I said before.

Hey, if you think military aggressiveness is a virtue you're in good company. For example, Alexander the Great felt the same way.

It's sarcasm because it's the most easily made criticism which happens to also mean nothing. It's such a simplistic, cartoonish idea. Yeah everything would be fine if we just picked up and went home. Are you looking forward to voting for Ron Paul?

Fortunately I don't live in the US.

But the principle is both simple and valid: Don't pick up the world's tar babies, because you get yourself stuck. Doesn't mean intervention is never a good idea, but it does mean you should be critical about which conflicts to intervene in. And in most cases it's best to stay out.

If the incentives are skewing people subconsciously, that is one thing. Intentional conspiracies are another. Telling a narrative or selling a story in regards to some of these questions is unhelpful, if you can prove a crime that would be interesting.

Do you even understand what an estimate is?

It's no crime to consciously make optimistic assumptions to lower your cost-estimate. As long as they're reasonable enough to offer plausible deniability. And that's what every sane capitalist will do if you offer him effectively a cost-plus contract.

Which is why every sane consumer wants to avoid those contracts. Including the pre-WWII US government.

 

[Virus]

That's news to me. Do you have evidence for that assertion?

This guy:

MJT: We were accused of supporting Mubarak. And we were accused of supporting Saddam Hussein when you were there working with the Iraqis.

Rick Francona: When we supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, it was not about Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t even about Iraq. It was about Iran. Everything we did was calculated to make sure the Iranians did not emerge victorious and become the primary power broker in the Gulf.

During the Second Gulf War we did almost everything wrong for years after the fall of Baghdad. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably the biggest mistake. It triggered the insurgency and played into Iranian hands. But back in 1987 and 1988, we had to make sure Iran didn’t win. If that meant getting in bed with Saddam Hussein, so be it. But the minute the war was over and the Iranians failed to emerge victorious, we left. That was it. We left and we cut off our support for Saddam because it was never about him or Iraq. And the Iraqis were smart enough to understand that.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/03/04/from-saigon-to-baghdad/

 

[Virus]

If you disagree with that, show me which country is more threatened by Iran than Iran by the US. And back it up with facts.

Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Israel and the Arab Gulf states.

Seriously, if you don't know the first thing abut Iran you shouldn't be discussing it.

 

[UWdude]

This guy:



http://pajamasmedia.com/

Lol.. pajamas media!!

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Israel and the Arab Gulf states.

Seriously, if you don't know the first thing abut Iran you shouldn't be discussing it.

lolwut?
Syria?



you silly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmIHRNN91Eg

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Iran's power projection capabilities are pretty marginal. At most they have a conventional strategic ballistic missile deterrent that may enter the calculus of regional powers, and a few proxies here and there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6vMUGd6TWg&NR=1

 

[Virus]

lolwut?
Syria?



you silly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmIHRNN91Eg

There are reports of Hezbollah acting as enforcers for the Assad regime against demonstrators.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Ah okay so that's how you mean it. By that logic Saudi Arabia is a threat to Bahrain.

Look at how the US dealt with Iraq's case, and then look at how they beat the war drums (or did, until pretty recently) when they talk about Iran, and I think you can maybe understand Egslim's point. An Iranian client/proxy/ally (Hezbollah) helping another Iranian quasi-ally (Syria) quell dissent (however violently) isn't even in the same league when you're talking about 'threats' to states in the conventional sense.

Did you like the video?