Thread: Iran Deal Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029232
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
After somewhere between 2 and 10 years of negotiating, there's been an agreement that Iran will no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons; in return for which they will be allowed to trade with the rest of the world. Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Would this deal have looked different had the USA and other nuclear armed states first taken the plank from their own eyes?
[edit - must proof read before posting!]
[ 14. July 2015, 21:48: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
Not sure about that, but I think it will look different in a couple of years time when Iran have developed the bomb.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
At least someone is trying something. As to those especially in USA who oppose the deal . Well please remember there are other nations involved besides USA so trying to kill the deal may not be THAT easy .
But in the words of John Lennon "Give peace a chance" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes wait until we "find" WMDs in Iran, the way we "found" WMDs in Iraq. Then we can have another 14-year war killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iranians, leave the area even further destabilized, and crow about how much we love freedom.
Fuck all that.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
The world is a tar baby.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons
Actually, by the five largest declared nuclear weapons states, as well as the EU. (Israel may or may not have more nuclear weapons that France or the UK - no publicly-accessible, reliable data exists.)
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome? Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome?
An acceptable outcome is Iran not having nuke bombs. The deal is unacceptable to me because I believe that if a country wants nukes, they will have nukes. It might be just a little tougher than intentionally catching a STD. The only way to stop someone is to beat hell out of them and folks are hinky about going that far. Given my opinion, there is hope it is just my depression kicking in and we really aren't dangling over the gaping maw.
quote:
Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons
Actually, by the five largest declared nuclear weapons states, as well as the EU. (Israel may or may not have more nuclear weapons that France or the UK - no publicly-accessible, reliable data exists.)
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome? Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
I don't want a nuclear-armed anywhere. Dreadful, immoral, unusable, pointless things.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome?
The deal is unacceptable to me because I believe that if a country wants nukes, they will have nukes. It might be just a little tougher than intentionally catching a STD. The only way to stop someone is to beat hell out of them and folks are hinky about going that far. Given my opinion, there is hope it is just my depression kicking in and we really aren't dangling over the gaping maw.
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons? Might delay them getting one for a bit, but as you said yourself it's about impossible to stop a country from having nukes if they are willing to put enough effort into it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology). Iran has had a nuclear programme since the 1950s.
[code]
[ 15. July 2015, 21:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
It would be groovy if they really don't.
quote:
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology).
Cool, but more importantly, lots of Iranian chicks are major babes.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Yehaw! Were's my boomstick!
Are you serious? Surely this deal is a positive step? I at least think it is.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I remember a pair of college students, some years back, who were sisters, from a service family. They had grown up partly in an American base in Iran. This was, of course, before the Shah fell.
That was a bit more than 30 years ago. Plenty of people remember when Iran was a major U.S. partner. Good times come and go, and so do bad times.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
Probably not that far, but it would probably take making Tehran and any areas involved with nuclear research look like a 1945 German or Japanese city. But then, that might just prove to them they should have had them. With all the warheads on the earth, how hard would it really be for just one to show up missing and not found until it blows up in the city it was smuggled in to for revenge.
There are probably several dozen nations that could build them if they really wanted to. What could really be done if they decide to do it?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Yehaw! Were's my boomstick!
Are you serious? Surely this deal is a positive step? I at least think it is.
Yep, I'm serious. Let's take it from country to country to person to person. The reason you haven't shown up on my front porch with a shotgun to blow me in half at the waist is because you have thus far chosen not to do so. If you really wanted to, you could probably do it and no law, rule, custom or whatever could stop you. It comes down to whether or not you want to be a killer.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
Probably not that far, but it would probably take making Tehran and any areas involved with nuclear research look like a 1945 German or Japanese city. But then, that might just prove to them they should have had them. With all the warheads on the earth, how hard would it really be for just one to show up missing and not found until it blows up in the city it was smuggled in to for revenge.
There are probably several dozen nations that could build them if they really wanted to. What could really be done if they decide to do it?
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So? Why should he be trusted?
Because what they say is corroborated by the evidence of them not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and generally religious leaders don't go out of their way to declare something sinful if they are doing that same thing and know they will ultimately be found out.
In any case, it's rather for the "prosecution" to make the case that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and given that the prosecution has largely consisted of the US and Israel, both of whom have a long track record of bullshit in this area, it's going to need to be a pretty damn convincing case.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
What you are suggesting is that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and I don't believe you.
Read back over what I'm saying because I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm saying what I think it would take to FORCE Iran to knuckle under to our will. I don't think it possible to make someone be good and behave. They have to choose to be good and behave.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
I will confess to not having read the deal, but does it really have no inspection regime?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So? Why should he be trusted?
Because what they say is corroborated by the evidence of them not trying to develop nuclear weapons
I could see how someone might find evidence of someone trying to do something, but what would evidence of someone not trying something look like?
quote:
and generally religious leaders don't go out of their way to declare something sinful if they are doing that same thing and know they will ultimately be found out.
That's an interesting thought.
quote:
In any case, it's rather for the "prosecution" to make the case that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and given that the prosecution has largely consisted of the US and Israel, both of whom have a long track record of bullshit in this area, it's going to need to be a pretty damn convincing case.
I've said earlier what I think it would take for us to make Iran behave and not build those weapons if they really want them and we really want to stop them. Grim, I say.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
What you are suggesting is that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and I don't believe you.
Read back over what I'm saying because I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm saying what I think it would take to FORCE Iran to knuckle under to our will. I don't think it possible to make someone be good and behave. They have to choose to be good and behave.
I was assuming the first few sentences were related to the rest of your post, oddly enough.
However, I am quite willing to believe this was a misunderstanding based upon poor expressive writing skills.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
It would be groovy if they really don't.
quote:
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology).
Cool, but more importantly, lots of Iranian chicks are major babes.
One of them, Maryam Mirzakhani won the Fields Medal for mathematics in 2014, illustrating the academic capabilities and reputation of Iran. She's now professor at Stanford University.
Iran isn't Iraq with an "n" instead of a "q". Different thing entirely.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
I will confess to not having read the deal, but does it really have no inspection regime?
I've read the first few pages of this and if Iran actually goes along then they won't make nuclear bombs. It looks like IAEA will be monitoring. I wonder if it is possible to have a secret nuclear facility or, given the nature of the beast, it isn't something you can keep a secret.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I was assuming the first few sentences were related to the rest of your post, oddly enough.
However, I am quite willing to believe this was a misunderstanding based upon poor expressive writing skills.
I've looked back over what I've written and haven't found where a reasonable person would think I'm suggesting we unleash hell. Everything I've said, and still believe, is what I think we would have to do if we were to force Iran to behave a certain way instead of persuade and encourage them to behave a certain way.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
But talking and persuasion what the P5+1 were just doing - so why exactly do you insist that the agreement is unacceptable?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
But talking and persuasion what the P5+1 were just doing - so why exactly do you insist that the agreement is unacceptable?
You know what? You have a good point there if the Iranians abide by the agreement. What matters is that they don't build nukes whether there is an agreement or not. Time will tell.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
With some of the hysteria around this, I can't help wondering if people just don't notice that the countries that aren't signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty are North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel.
Oh, and South Sudan, probably just because they haven't existed long enough to get around to it.
United States politics seems occasionally to be weirdly obsessed with particular enemies. Cuba is one that stands out of course, and Obama's doing something about that. But Iran is another one. The determination that Iran not only is an enemy, but must be an enemy has driven a great deal of policy since 1979. I knew about the Iran-Iraq war when I was a kid in the '80s, but to understand as an adult how Saddam Hussein was supported in the first stage of his megalomania for basically "Not Being Iran" opens up a whole new avenue into the complete mess that's been made.
And I'm sure there are Iranian hardliners who drive home the message that Americans are the enemy just as much as there are American hardliners who drive home the message that Iranians are the enemy. You can't be that kind of "strong" person unless you've got someone to be strong against.
But just as much as it's wrong to think that all Americans are in the Tea Party or whatever, it's equally wrong to think that all Iranians hate Westerners with lethal force.
I don't doubt that Iran has interests and seeks to advance them. Whoop-de-do. So does everyone. Iran is quite a large country, and there's no reason why it wouldn't have power and influence, and it's basically the world's main Shiite state so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it's interests are often aligned with supporting Shiites elswhere, including against Sunnis. There's nothing particularly nefarious about any of that. Nor is it simplistic as that (have a look at writing on Azerbaijan-Iran relations).
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
Meanwhile, we don't seem to have any great concern with India and Pakistan so long as they promise to only blow each other up and not cause a more general nuclear winter.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
BL. Looking forward to petrol prices coming down.
Yes, yes, naive I know. But one can live in hope, even in hell.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like IAEA will be monitoring. I wonder if it is possible to have a secret nuclear facility or, given the nature of the beast, it isn't something you can keep a secret.
The question I would ask is, would Iran be more likely to get away with making a bomb without the agreement, or with it? Could we "force" them to not make a bomb through war or intimidation, and stand any better chance of thinking they won't build a bomb than through this agreement? Would war change their motivation for making or not making a bomb? Is this, in fact, the best possible way, not that it's perfect, but the best possible way to minimize the chances of Iran making a bomb?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question I would ask is, would Iran be more likely to get away with making a bomb without the agreement, or with it?
I'm not so sure because I'm not sure if they are lying or not.
quote:
Could we "force" them to not make a bomb through war or intimidation, and stand any better chance of thinking they won't build a bomb than through this agreement? Would war change their motivation for making or not making a bomb?
As I said above, and some mistakenly thought that is what I was advocating, it seems it would have to be a war of devastation to even have a chance of working. If we just smack them around some, it will probably tell them they've needed it all along and build all they can and/or buy some off the black market if any are on the black market. The saying of "if you shoot at the king you must kill him" comes to mind. But then, what does that tell other countries that are considering the idea? It would tell me to build, build now, and build a lot. When I go online and check the news each morning, yeah, I admit I'm checking to see if someone has smuggled a nuclear bomb into some city and set it off.
quote:
Is this, in fact, the best possible way, not that it's perfect, but the best possible way to minimize the chances of Iran making a bomb?
Given the choice between trying an agreement and doing what I think we would have to do militarily to stop them, I'm all for trying an agreement.
With all this going on, as I understand it, the Iranians are against ISIS just like we are. I'll think about it tomorrow whilst drinking a beer.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Rejoice!
Like over India and Bangladesh swapping enclaves.
To imagine Iran as one monolithic 'they' engaged in quadruple think is absurd. And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke. And if they did, or openly, NOBODY, not even the insane Republican-Israeli-Saudi axis is going to do a thing except proliferate nukes to every Sunni state. There will be no invasion of Iran. Ever.
'They' are coming in from the cold where WE put them.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke.
Why is such a thing impossible to conceal, Martin?
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
My thought on "What do we do with a problem like Iran?" (to the tune from Sound of Music) is that we are failing to deal with the war between the fundamentalists of Sunni and Shia. This has been going on since 634 and will probably never be resolved.
Originally posted by Martin60
quote:
To imagine Iran as one monolithic 'they' engaged in quadruple think is absurd. And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke. And if they did, or openly, NOBODY, not even the insane Republican-Israeli-Saudi axis is going to do a thing except proliferate nukes to every Sunni state. There will be no invasion of Iran. Ever.
As I have previously posted, the Mideast is like a black hole that will pull the whole world into its center. Any efforts to reduce this are worth trying.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
The Saudis have oil we need, or think we need. And they give us access to military bases in the area.
The West's relationship with Israel is a toxic blend of:
a) guilt over the Holocaust and the West's failure to stop it - even after we knew it was happening and had the means to do so;
b) a particular (peculiar?) brand of conservative evangelicalism that sees Israel as both the object of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12:3 (see note 1), and a means to bring about the end times (rebuilding the Temple, etc.)
(note 1) "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
[ 16. July 2015, 13:25: Message edited by: jbohn ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
The Saudis have oil we need, or think we need. And they give us access to military bases in the area.
The West's relationship with Israel is a toxic blend of:
a) guilt over the Holocaust and the West's failure to stop it - even after we knew it was happening and had the means to do so;
b) a particular (peculiar?) brand of conservative evangelicalism that sees Israel as both the object of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12:3 (see note 1), and a means to bring about the end times (rebuilding the Temple, etc.)
(note 1) "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
This pretty much sums it up, yes. And it's depressing.
More than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II, and as you say the history of Israel is bound up with World War II as well. One of ISIS' early acts/goals was the removal of a border between Iraq and Syria that was part of an artificial carve-up of territory in 1916-1920.
Someone at work was reading a book on Afghanistan that discussed how outside powers have been trying to control that country for hundreds of years, and it's never worked in the way intended.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
An interesting question is whether it would make any difference if Iran did have atomic bombs. Notice that although multiple nations have such bombs, no one has used them in a war in 70 years. Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators. Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself? Of course, atomic weapons can be used as a threat, but they lose substance as a threat when no one ever carries out the threat. What we have learned is that a weapon that is too large is mostly a waste of money.
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself?
To say nothing of the risk of nuclear retaliation from the Israelis and/or their allies. The Iranians have a worldview that is mostly incompatible with those in the West, but they're not suicidal.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Biological warfare on a state level is unlikely, I think - it's simply too hard to control. Bio-terrorism on a small-group-actor scale, on the other hand, is far more likely
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ore than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II,
WWI, actually. The British (among others) encouraged a revolt against the Ottomans during and after the war.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ore than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II,
WWI, actually. The British (among others) encouraged a revolt against the Ottomans during and after the war.
And very messy they were too. The party backed by the British held parts of what is now Saudi Arabia for some time after 1918 but in 1932 the current state of Saudi Arabia was founded with Ibn Saud at the head, known as King Abdulaziz (thanks Wiki, I wondered about the names!)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
[QB] An interesting question is whether it would make any difference if Iran did have atomic bombs. Notice that although multiple nations have such bombs, no one has used them in a war in 70 years. Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators. Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself?
It seems that the reason folks are extra hinky about Iran having the bomb is their being a theological state and how the bomb can be used to advance a desired eschatology. I do hope they are just selling wolf tickets.
quote:
Of course, atomic weapons can be used as a threat, but they lose substance as a threat when no one ever carries out the threat. What we have learned is that a weapon that is too large is mostly a waste of money.
Thomas Sowell once wrote "What is history but the story of how politicians have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race?" If it was nuclear weapons that kept us and the Soviets from going at it hammers and tongs, I'm cool with it. I'd rather blow money on weapons that aren't used than spend money on weapons that are. At least we can live to tell about it.
quote:
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If you let the IAEA in, there's nothing they can't ask to see. If you don't let them in or don't let them inspect trucks, trains, barges, follow power lines, roads, you're building a nuke.
Iran is not and never has been a problem unless we make it so. Neither will it be. If we EVER once tried saying sorry and can we start again and would you like tea at the Palace that would be nice.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
How long will it be until the first major viral warfare?
Depending on how you define "major", we have already experienced viral warfare.
There is good evidence that British officers gave blankets contaminated with smallpox as gifts to native Americans during the Pontiac Rebellion of 1763-66) with the deliberate intention of spreading smallpox among the native population. Half a million people died of smallpox during and shortly after the war, though whether the blankets contributed to that is unclear since the disease was already present in the native population. There were almost certainly other instances of this practice in North America - both before and after independence.
In the Middle Ages it was quite common for armies besieging a city to fling the corpses of plague victims inside (though I'll accept that bubonic plague is bacterial rather than viral). It's suggested that the practice originated with the Mongols, from the Steppes of Asia where bubonic plague is endemic, who managed to maintain a chain of infection within their armies so they could spread the disease among populations with no immunity. If so, this act of biological warfare killed a third of the population of Europe in a few decades.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
The 'half million' figure seems questionable. According to Wikipedia:
"The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's War is unknown. About 400 British soldiers were killed in action and perhaps 50 were captured and tortured to death.[98] George Croghan estimated that 2,000 settlers had been killed or captured, a figure sometimes repeated as 2,000 settlers killed.[99] The violence compelled approximately 4,000 settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia to flee their homes.[100] Native American losses went mostly unrecorded."
I think future attempts at using disease as a weapon of war will be better informed and perhaps even deadlier than the examples you cite. In any case, one could attack the food chain rather than afflict human beings directly. Suppose someone finds a way to kill every maize plant in north America (or soybeans).
This is getting off track.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If we EVER once tried saying sorry and can we start again
Sorry for what? For the Shah? The Shah has been dead for longer than most Iranians have been alive. I don't think that's the big issue today.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The 'half million' figure seems questionable. According to Wikipedia:
"The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's War is unknown. About 400 British soldiers were killed in action and perhaps 50 were captured and tortured to death.[98] George Croghan estimated that 2,000 settlers had been killed or captured, a figure sometimes repeated as 2,000 settlers killed.[99] The violence compelled approximately 4,000 settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia to flee their homes.[100] Native American losses went mostly unrecorded."
Also, according to wikipedia,
quote:
While it is estimated that 400,000-500,000 (possibly up to 1.5 million) Native Americans died during and years after the Pontiac's War, mostly from smallpox,[77][78][79] ... Smallpox may have reached Native villages through a number of sources. Eyewitnesses reported that Native warriors contracted the disease after attacking infected white settlements on the Juniata River, and spread the disease upon their return home
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Hussein . . . Hussein . . . sorry, can't remember anyone like that.
Oh right. That guy.
For those who are similarly amnesiac:
quote:
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Well, you know how it is. You get so busy and who can remember every dictator you supply chemical weapons to?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Hussein . . . Hussein . . . sorry, can't remember anyone like that.
Oh right. That guy.
For those who are similarly amnesiac:
quote:
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Well, you know how it is. You get so busy and who can remember every dictator you supply chemical weapons to?
America (and Israel) also sold a huge amount of weaponry to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. How does selling weapons to both sides in a war equate to picking sides with one side? Iraq's main backer in the war was the Soviet Union. It was Iran that would have lost the war if they had not been able to buy US and Israeli weapons. The US wanted a stalemate in that war. They didn't want either side to win. How does that equate to backing Saddam?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?
When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.
Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?
When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.
Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
To get a funding stream independent of the Congressional appropriations process to secretly pay for wars in Central America. I'm not sure how it's possible to "have heard of Iran-Contra" and not know this.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
To get a funding stream independent of the Congressional appropriations process to secretly pay for wars in Central America. I'm not sure how it's possible to "have heard of Iran-Contra" and not know this.
Yes that was the explanation given by Col North and others. And you evidently believed every word of it.
Don't you think the US government could have found other ways to cook the books and fund the Contras secretly if it had wanted to?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War. And make money.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.
Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.
Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
You know, you could just spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia and clear this all up.
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos. Support for Iraq was open and larger.
[ 16. July 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?
When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.
Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
The United States at the time "picked sides" by picking its own munitions manufacturers. Who sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Arms supplier to the world; it's what we do. That way, we can turn the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about into a perpetual-motion machine, eternally occupied with churning out newer, better weapons than the ones we just sold to our allies / enemies / fifth columns / whatever. You know, whichever they are this week.
We pick sides in order to maintain a steady supply of bogeymen.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes wait until we "find" WMDs in Iran, the way we "found" WMDs in Iraq. Then we can have another 14-year war killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iranians, leave the area even further destabilized, and crow about how much we love freedom.
Fuck all that.
Preach it, my brother.
I cannot say much about the behavior of the Reagan administration in regards to the Iran/ Contra affair without slamming us into Hell, but suffice it to say, I don't believe said administration made a single decision in that affair in which the ambition and the advantage of said administration did not take precedence over the wellbeing of the American people.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
orfeo
In other words you are completely right. I'd forgotten about the 6 US hostages held by Hezbollah.
No Foggy Bottom fog necessary. And even under the most hawkish possible, Christian Zionist Republican cabal, the trillionaire MIC is NOT going to attack Iran in any way under ANY circumstances apart from nuclear launch preparation. There will be NO BOG in Iraq. Ever.
Because we'd have to be WORSE. Much, much worse.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.
Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
You know, you could just spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia and clear this all up.
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos. Support for Iraq was open and larger.
Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?
Firstly lets look at the claim that 'support for Iraq was open and larger'. Well it was certainly more open, the US government has certainly been keen to spread the idea that they supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. However was it really larger? Now we can never know for certain because the facts in cases like these are so often obscured in lies and propaganda. However some facts are relatively uncontested
Iraq was an ally of the Soviet Union. Its military equipment was mostly Soviet and its main military supplier throughout the war was the USSR.
The Iranian military had mostly American military equipment. Their army was the Shah's army that had been stocked, supplied and trained by the US, with help from Israel. This meant that once the war was underway they needed American and Israeli ammunition, spare parts and replacement equipment and lots of it. Without it they would have lost the war quite quickly.
They got it. Starting in 1981 thy bought huge amounts of the equipment they needed, at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission) then later direct from the US.
quote:
Arms sales to Iran that totaled an estimated $500 million from 1981 to 1983 according to the Jafe Institute for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. Most of it was paid for by Iranian oil delivered to Israel.[2]:107 "According to Ahmad Haidari, "an Iranian arms dealer working for the Khomeini regime, roughly 80% of the weaponry bought by Tehran" immediately after the onset of the war originated in Israel.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
You'll notice the arms sales started in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken.
Given that Iran was so dependent on arms supplies from the US and Israel it becomes clear that they would have quickly lost the war without these sales. If the US government wanted Iran to lose the war, if it was backing Iraq to win, it would have done everything it could to block these sales rather than facilitate them. Do you really think that the US had this strategic aim but gave it up because of tender hearted concern for half a dozen hostages?
I have some bad news for you. Remember that time you went to Brooklyn and bought that bridge. Well I'm afraid to have to inform you that the guy who sold it to you wasn't the legal owner.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators.
Or as Kelly noted above, the USA under Reagan.
The next big thing in the Middle East, after we're starting to take ski holidays in Iran again, will be to have Iran and Saudi Arabia jostle to determine who will be the regional power. We don't really want Iran nuking Saudi, but Israel will do something very bad to Iran if it looks like they'll win, with or without the global policing of the USA. This will be good for business as noted. European and American companies will freely supply the arms because of the extended decades long recession we pretend we haven't been in because the lovely military-industrial faux-economic engine. The goal? Obvious isn't it? We need the Middle East petro-money to be circulated back to western countries to really deal with 21st century economics. We'll do that by selling then expensive killing machines.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The next big thing in the Middle East, after we're starting to take ski holidays in Iran again, will be to have Iran and Saudi Arabia jostle to determine who will be the regional power. We don't really want Iran nuking Saudi, but Israel will do something very bad to Iran if it looks like they'll win
Why do you think they would do that? Since when were they friends with the Saudis. As the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post detailed in the Iran-Iraq war Israel backed the Iranians. Why on earth would they back the Saudis in an Iran-Saudi conflict?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?
...
at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission)
Ah, I see. This is the kind of territory we're in.
I can't disprove whatever conspiracy theories you have, so I'm not going to bother trying.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?
...
at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission)
Ah, I see. This is the kind of territory we're in.
Do you really think that Israel (which receives such a huge amount of US foreign aid) would have sold that amount of munitions to Iran, thereby changing the course of the war, without the US government giving the go ahead?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't disprove whatever conspiracy theories you have, so I'm not going to bother trying.
What do you mean by 'conspiracy theory'? I'll follow your advice and check Wikipedia
quote:
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Now what were you saying earlier
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it. I'm pointing out some of the problems with your conspiracy theory.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I have the impression (can't offer a source) that US aid to Israel and Egypt (90% of all foreign aid) is limited to purchase arms from the US. If so, then any arms given by Israel or Egypt come, indirectly, from the US.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.
The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
[ 18. July 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I have the impression (can't offer a source) that US aid to Israel and Egypt (90% of all foreign aid) is limited to purchase arms from the US. If so, then any arms given by Israel or Egypt come, indirectly, from the US.
Yes, exactly. US foreign aid to Israel isn't entirely limited to military assistance, however it may as well be as 99% of US aid to Israel is military in nature. In 2012 this equated to over $400 per capita in military assistance for Israel.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
quote:
USA president Obama:
Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship.
Obama: U.S., Saudi Arabia have 'strategic relationship'
It's been going for a long time. I think everyone knows about the crony capitalism, self-dealing and personal enrichment between American wealthy politicians in the Bush Jr years pre and post terror attacks in 2001, no reason to think it stopped under the next guy.
[ 18. July 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.
The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
Did it ever occour to you that it was the other way around and that the tail does not wag the dog? That it is not that America is defending the Saudi government not because they just happen to be the people with all the oil. Rather it is that the Saudi government is only there because the US government wanted that country to have a narrow sectarian dictatorship. The narrow sectarian nature of the government there promotes divisions between Saudi and some of its neighbours. Divide and rule.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
Which is in sharp contrast to you asserting things because you refuse to believe otherwise. I'm citing the findings of others, you're citing your own ideas based on some kind of 'vibe'.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter? I would also point out that 'the authorities' in question were authorities of the US government which is the same government that was doing the selling in question so you may want to consider taking their findings with pinch of salt.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is in sharp contrast to you asserting things because you refuse to believe otherwise. I'm citing the findings of others, you're citing your own ideas based on some kind of 'vibe'.
This would be a reference to my 'vibe' that Israel would not have sold weapons to Iran without US government permission. Now given the importance of US military aid to Israel I would have thought that this was obvious but you have asked for further evidence.
How about Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh writing in the New York Times? Is that a good enough source for you?
quote:
Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars' worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government, according to former senior Reagan Administration officials and Israeli officials...Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980...
The inquiry did show that Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel worked out an agreement in 1981 under which the United States would review and approve Iranian requests to Israel for American-made spare parts and other equipment on a case-by-base basis...But even after the official agreement was broken, American officials said, the Administration made no effort to curb what became a steadily increasing flow of American-made arms from Israel to Iran...The Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel's stockpile of American-made weapons, despite clear evidence that Israel was shipping them to Iran...No precise estimate of the volume of goods shipped could be made. But in interviews, Israeli and American intelligence officials acknowledged that weapons, spare parts and ammunition worth several billion dollars flowed to Iran each year during the early 1980's.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/iran-pipeline-hidden-chapter-special-report-us-said-have-allowed-israel-sell.html
[ 19. July 2015, 08:35: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.
As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.
The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
Did it ever occour to you that it was the other way around and that the tail does not wag the dog? That it is not that America is defending the Saudi government not because they just happen to be the people with all the oil. Rather it is that the Saudi government is only there because the US government wanted that country to have a narrow sectarian dictatorship. The narrow sectarian nature of the government there promotes divisions between Saudi and some of its neighbours. Divide and rule.
I read of the British helping the install them but haven't ever come across anything that shows we were involved with the Sauds taking over. It's Peter O'Toole's fault.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.
As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.
Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?
[ 20. July 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.
Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.
As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.
Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?
Prove it.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?
Prove it.
I thought I already had. Once again that quote from the New York Times
quote:
Soon after taking office in 1981 , the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars' worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government, according to former senior Reagan Administration officials and Israeli officials...
The inquiry did show that Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel worked out an agreement in 1981 under which the United States would review and approve Iranian requests to Israel for American-made spare parts and other equipment on a case-by-base basis
You can read the full article here
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/iran-pipeline-hidden-chapter-special-report-us-said-have-allowed-israel-sell.html
From the Wikipedia article about the Lebanon hostage crisis
quote:
1982 July 19 - Abduction: First Westerner abducted is David Dodge, the acting president of the American University of Beirut (AUB) (American).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis
1981 was before 1982
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thank you.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As I said all along, including 30+ years ago, it's all about balance. Just what Israel wanted.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I actually think the deal is the best we could have gotten.
The coalition was beginning to show cracks with Russia and China favoring Iran during the negotiations.
The alternative would have been war. It still may be, but I tend to want to engage the Iranians than confront them. When we engage a dictatorship we will eventually see changes in that government; whereas if we confront a dictatorship, it only gives the dictatorship reason to hunker down.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hate to say it orfeo, you, we, WEREN'T completely right. By a country mile.
Bibliophile is. Game, set and match to him I'd say.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hate to say it orfeo, you, we, WEREN'T completely right. By a country mile.
Bibliophile is. Game, set and match to him I'd say.
Thank you for saying so. You weren't entirely wrong either. It was about maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. It was about keeping the war going, divide and rule. I once remember reading a quote from someone, I forget who it was who was speaking about his time in politics. He said that he would worry sometimes that he was being too cynical only to discover later that his mistake was that he wasn't being cynical enough.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I actually think the deal is the best we could have gotten.
The coalition was beginning to show cracks with Russia and China favoring Iran during the negotiations.
The alternative would have been war. It still may be, but I tend to want to engage the Iranians than confront them. When we engage a dictatorship we will eventually see changes in that government; whereas if we confront a dictatorship, it only gives the dictatorship reason to hunker down.
What we have now is preferable to war, too, istm. There is still plenty of time for the Iranian government to malignatudinousnessly reveal itself to the world if they are true practitioners of nefariosity and depravicity.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Anyone remember 'weapons of mass destruction". With Iraq it was the reason for the war. With Iran is it the reason for not war. Anyone else confused?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I suppose the difference is that people suspected Iraq of having WMDs (and, to be fair Iraq had had WMDs, and used them, and so it was more a question of whether they'd all been destroyed). No one is claiming Iran has nuclear weapons. The questions are "does Iran want to develop nukes?" and "is the civil nuclear programme Iran wants to follow a step towards developing bombs?". If there is evidence in the future that Iran is using their civil programme for bomb development then presumably the deal can be reassessed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(and, to be fair Iraq had had WMDs, and used them, and so it was more a question of whether they'd all been destroyed)
Had they?
Iraq certainly had had chemical weapons. However, I'd always been under the impression that "weapons of mass destruction" (hey, let's invent catchy yet imprecise names!) was intended to refer to something rather different.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It is a vaguely defined (if defined at all) term. But, it's usually used in relation to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.
Well, in 2003 chemical weapons in Iraq were the only reasonable concern, but am I the only one who remembers yellowcake, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", and hundreds of other utterly fraudulent hints by the Bush administration that not only was Iraq very close to having a nuclear weapon but that they were almost certain to turn it over to al-Qæda? That whole panic seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.
Orfeo is right. Using a non-specific catch phrase like "WMDs" was a deliberate tactic to obscure exactly what kind of weapons were being discussed in 2002-3.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The comparison is probably at least mostly unreasonable, but my city like many others is trying to make peace, regulate or ban Uber the car sharing service and Airbnb the bed and breakfast service. Most think they can't. Like street drugs, there's going to be ways around.
With nuclear anything - power, weapons, medical care - isn't it far too late. And why does France or Pakistan get to keep them if Iran can't?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anyone remember 'weapons of mass destruction". With Iraq it was the reason for the war. With Iran is it the reason for not war. Anyone else confused?
AFAIUI if a Country has got the Bomb we leave them alone. The only thing confusing me is why it's taking top Iranian scientists so long to work out which bit goes where on the damn thing.
World security has, for sometime now, appeared to me as stranger than fiction which is probably why I've given up worrying about it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
AFAIUI if a Country has got the Bomb we leave them alone.
Kind of. This may, in fact, be the primary impetus for Iran wanting a nuclear weapon in the first place. The previous U.S. administration listed them as a charter member of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. North Korea developed the bomb. Iraq, rather famously, did not. Looking at the trajectory of those two countries from the "Axis of Evil" speech going forward it would seem to be more favorable to be North Korea (has nuclear weapons, subjected to sanctions and interminable six-way negotiations) than to be Iraq (no nuclear weapons, invaded, occupied, still a chaotic mess more than a dozen years later).
So from an Iranian perspective, it's easy to conclude that the only way to provide long-term security is to have some kind of nuclear deterrent. On the other hand, a regional arms race isn't particularly in their interests either. (Everyone who joins the nuclear club wants to be the last new member.)
At any rate, North Korea can provide a fairly useful example, both positive and negative. In 1994 there was the Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program and the U.S. (and allies) agreed to lift some sanctions and help build two light water reactors in North Korea. There was an inspections regime and some secret cheating by the North Koreans. But do you know what there wasn't when the Agreed Framework was in place? A North Korean bomb. The restrictions in place limited the North Korean's ability to advance their program, even given their cheating. In 2002 the Bush Administration decided to abandon the Agreed Framework, at which point the North Korea ejected the inspectors, removed all the monitoring equipment, broke the seals on the fissile material storage areas, and a few years later there was a nuclear armed Hermit Kingdom.
The point of this lengthy analysis is that international agreements, particularly in areas of arms control, shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of "Will every clause be scrupulously followed by all parties?" but "Is the situation better with this system in place than it would be without it?" From the West's perspective the amount of cheating North Korea was able to do within the Agreed Framework was much preferable to what they could do once the Agreed Framework was abandoned. The current Iran deal seems to be of a similar character.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.
Well, in 2003 chemical weapons in Iraq were the only reasonable concern, but am I the only one who remembers yellowcake, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", and hundreds of other utterly fraudulent hints by the Bush administration that not only was Iraq very close to having a nuclear weapon but that they were almost certain to turn it over to al-Qæda? That whole panic seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.
No, you're not the only one who remembers such things, that's exactly what I was getting at. The message was not that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and had used them horribly against his own citizens, the message was that Saddam Hussein just might have means of attacking us from afar.
And there most certainly were dark mutterings about Saddam Hussein helping out al-Qaeda. I remember that distinctly, because it fundamentally relied on a gullible population believing that Muslims are basically the Borg collective and not being able to notice the minor detail that Hussein and Islamic fundamentalists hated each others' guts with a passion.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
...Saddam Hussein just might have means of attacking us from afar.
Considers the people who get up in the morning, kiss the kiddies bye-bye, and drive to work in the drone control centres and wonder if the people they bomb think "If I had a rocket launcher". But is shooting down drones enough for them?
The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.
Why? What do you think will happen if the deal doesn't hold? If the deal doesn't hold all that will happen is that the sanctions will return. That wouldn't be great but not exactly a disaster.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.
Why? What do you think will happen if the deal doesn't hold? If the deal doesn't hold all that will happen is that the sanctions will return. That wouldn't be great but not exactly a disaster.
What makes you think the Iranians will be the ones to break it?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.
Why? What do you think will happen if the deal doesn't hold? If the deal doesn't hold all that will happen is that the sanctions will return. That wouldn't be great but not exactly a disaster.
What makes you think the Iranians will be the ones to break it?
Well the American part of the deal is that they would lift the sanctions, so breaking the deal for them would mean putting back the sanctions. As I said a return to sanctions wouldn't be great but it wouldn't exactly be a disaster.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
not exactly a disaster.
No, I suppose not, if you don't care about the people...
85,000 cancer patients not getting treatment. 40,000 hemophilia patients without clotting agents. 23,000 HIV/AIDS patients without drugs. etc. Wikipedia link.
I've heard elsewise about water-borne illnesses and infant mortality, but perhaps that isn't a disaster to some either. Thought I'd consider that it would be if it was my kid.
The very lengthy and ridiculous Cuba sanctions by USA would tend to suggest that humanitarian concerns are not really very important, so perhaps you are essentially correct
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And there most certainly were dark mutterings about Saddam Hussein helping out al-Qaeda. I remember that distinctly, because it fundamentally relied on a gullible population believing that Muslims are basically the Borg collective and not being able to notice the minor detail that Hussein and Islamic fundamentalists hated each others' guts with a passion.
Indeed while many of us were watching the progress of the Iraq war, (or lack of it), through the fingers of one hand covering our eyes, there came a point when some cried-- For goodness sake reinstate Saddam !
But Hey, let's get serious. No tin-pot dictators in the Mid-East means the West getting it's hands on the black stuff far more easily. Barbarian groups brutalising local populations? OK not great but nothing we can't shut our eyes to completely.
I would have thought cutting some kind of deal with Iran was the only option left. Bush's half baked policy of launching pre-emptive strikes on axis evil countries must now surely be dead-in-the-water on the back of Iraq.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
not exactly a disaster.
No, I suppose not, if you don't care about the people...
85,000 cancer patients not getting treatment. 40,000 hemophilia patients without clotting agents. 23,000 HIV/AIDS patients without drugs. etc. Wikipedia link.
I've heard elsewise about water-borne illnesses and infant mortality, but perhaps that isn't a disaster to some either. Thought I'd consider that it would be if it was my kid.
The very lengthy and ridiculous Cuba sanctions by USA would tend to suggest that humanitarian concerns are not really very important, so perhaps you are essentially correct
Yes of course the reintroduction of sanctions would be bad for those people and it was crass of me not to acknowledge that in my reply. I was responding to you writing that the deal better hold 'for all our sakes' which suggests your expecting some kind of earth shattering disaster. There won't be. All that might happen is the sanctions might come back.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Bibliophile: I was responding to you writing that the deal better hold 'for all our sakes' which suggests your expecting some kind of earth shattering disaster
Sick people without treatment, water-borne illnesses and infant mortality aren't earth-shattering disasters?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: I was responding to you writing that the deal better hold 'for all our sakes' which suggests your expecting some kind of earth shattering disaster
Sick people without treatment, water-borne illnesses and infant mortality aren't earth-shattering disasters?
'earth-shattering' in the sense of a disaster directly affecting people across the earth. The use of the phrase 'for all our sakes' implies that no prophet thinks that something like world war three will break out if the deal breaks down.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.
Why? What do you think will happen if the deal doesn't hold? If the deal doesn't hold all that will happen is that the sanctions will return. That wouldn't be great but not exactly a disaster.
What makes you think the Iranians will be the ones to break it?
Well the American part of the deal is that they would lift the sanctions, so breaking the deal for them would mean putting back the sanctions. As I said a return to sanctions wouldn't be great but it wouldn't exactly be a disaster.
But there wouldn't be a return to the sanctions regime we have now. If the deal fails because the U.S. walks away, the rest of the P5+1 are unlikely to reinstate their sanctions, and the Iranians will have no reason to rein in their nuclear program.
The whole point of the coordinated sanctions regime was to bring the Iranians to the table. There's no reason for everyone else to keep it up if it turns out that the U.S. was the one bargaining in bad faith.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
[qbl the American part of the deal is that they would lift the sanctions, so breaking the deal for them would mean putting back the sanctions. As I said a return to sanctions wouldn't be great but it wouldn't exactly be a disaster. [/qb]
But there wouldn't be a return to the sanctions regime we have now. If the deal fails because the U.S. walks away, the rest of the P5+1 are unlikely to reinstate their sanctions, and the Iranians will have no reason to rein in their nuclear program.
The whole point of the coordinated sanctions regime was to bring the Iranians to the table. There's no reason for everyone else to keep it up if it turns out that the U.S. was the one bargaining in bad faith. [/QB]
Right so if the deal fails then there won't even be a return to proper sanctions, nothing much will happen except ineffectual unilateral sanctions from the US on Iran. Sorry I'm not really seeing what the big problem is.
[ 24. July 2015, 19:45: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Bibliophile: 'earth-shattering' in the sense of a disaster directly affecting people across the earth.
When children die of diseases in Iran, that doesn't affect you?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It will when those diseases overcome known treatments and migrate around the world. If there is one branch of science that teaches us that we really are interconnected, it's epidemiology.
[ 24. July 2015, 21:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
LeRoc and Kelly Alves have done a fine and welcome job at expressing what I needed to. Thank-you. In my view, any other way of viewing this isn't Christian. Or at least, not a Christianity I'm interested in.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: 'earth-shattering' in the sense of a disaster directly affecting people across the earth.
When children die of diseases in Iran, that doesn't affect you?
Not directly no. Of course I feel sympathy when I hear about such cases and of course it is terrible that we live in a world where suffering of every kind is happening throughout the world every second of the day. However it would be dishonest of me to pretend that each individual case of terrible human suffering that happened around the world affects me directly. That doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for those individual cases I hear about.
No prophets' use of the phrase 'for all our sakes' suggested to me that he expected there to be consequences for the world outside Iran that went beyond simply feeling sympathy for those suffering as a result of sanctions, he can correct me if I haven't understood his meaning correctly
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
No prophets' use of the phrase 'for all our sakes' suggested to me that he expected there to be consequences for the world outside Iran that went beyond simply feeling sympathy for those suffering as a result of sanctions, he can correct me if I haven't understood his meaning correctly
There are consequences for the outside world due to the suffering in Iran. How about someone in one of our countries identifying with the suffering and adopting the anger that the people of Iran would justly feel, and then acting on it. This is how we create terrorists. It surprises me that people don't understand the sources of anger often involves our behaviour or ridiculous notions that our behaviour only has the effects we intend.
But back to the point made earlier which seems to miss you, doesn't sin hurt the sinner, doing harm affect the person doing the harm? Sympathy is not enough, prayer is not enough. Empathy would be a start.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
the American part of the deal is that they would lift the sanctions, so breaking the deal for them would mean putting back the sanctions. As I said a return to sanctions wouldn't be great but it wouldn't exactly be a disaster.
But there wouldn't be a return to the sanctions regime we have now. If the deal fails because the U.S. walks away, the rest of the P5+1 are unlikely to reinstate their sanctions, and the Iranians will have no reason to rein in their nuclear program.
The whole point of the coordinated sanctions regime was to bring the Iranians to the table. There's no reason for everyone else to keep it up if it turns out that the U.S. was the one bargaining in bad faith.
Right so if the deal fails then there won't even be a return to proper sanctions, nothing much will happen except ineffectual unilateral sanctions from the US on Iran. Sorry I'm not really seeing what the big problem is.
I take it you're not at all concerned about their nuclear program?
[corrected code. I think]
[ 25. July 2015, 06:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
No prophets' use of the phrase 'for all our sakes' suggested to me that he expected there to be consequences for the world outside Iran that went beyond simply feeling sympathy for those suffering as a result of sanctions, he can correct me if I haven't understood his meaning correctly
There are consequences for the outside world due to the suffering in Iran. How about someone in one of our countries identifying with the suffering and adopting the anger that the people of Iran would justly feel, and then acting on it. This is how we create terrorists.
Terrorism is not caused by injustice. Terrorism is caused by the search for power and sometimes also the search for money. Injustice is frequently the pretext but it is not sufficient. There also has to be a situation where people think they can gain power (and sometimes also money) for themselves using terrorism.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Right so if the deal fails then there won't even be a return to proper sanctions, nothing much will happen except ineffectual unilateral sanctions from the US on Iran. Sorry I'm not really seeing what the big problem is.
I take it you're not at all concerned about their nuclear program?
[corrected code. I think]
Not really. I know some people like to portray the Iranian government as mad fanatics but I rater think they're no less cold and calculating than the governments of Pakistan, China, Russia etc. The notion of M.A.D. may have been much mocked in the Cold War but it does seem to have worked for 70 years to prevent nuclear warfare. I'm not going to worry about it.
(Yes corrected code, thank you)
[ 25. July 2015, 08:07: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
I don't think they're mad fanatics either. But governments miscalculate and accidents happen, and I think it's probably better if we try to minimize the number of possible chains of events that have "nuclear warhead detonation" at the end of them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Injustice is frequently the pretext but it is not sufficient.
Your whole post is flawed but this sentence, in particular, makes no sense. Saying that injustice is "not sufficient" is completely different from saying it is "the pretext". The first says that injustice is a factor, although not the only factor. The second is saying that injustice isn't a factor at all.
I always find it deeply troubling when people buy into this notion that terrorists are just people who hate our guts with some kind of irrational hatred, because it's fundamentally about saying there is nothing we can do about terrorism.
Which is a complete lie. Over the years I've raised many times the work of Professor Robert Pape on suicide bombers in particular, demonstrating the factors that create the environment for a suicide bombing campaign. And fundamentally it is a tactic against an occupying force. If there's no occupying force, there is no suicide bombing. There's a clear link to a specific situation, not just kind of abstract cultural clash. And Pape used his work to advise the US government on how to achieve its strategic goals in the Middle East without triggering bombing campaigns.
Osama bin Laden used to specify in quite some detail just why he was doing what he was doing. One does not have to agree with his reasoning to understand the importance of grasping that there was a reasoning process. It's not about going "you know, I really hate Westerners so let's go kill some". It's far more about "this is what Westerners are doing that I hate".
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Thank you Orfeo. I have trouble articulating some of this clearly.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But governments miscalculate and accidents happen, and I think it's probably better if we try to minimize the number of possible chains of events that have "nuclear warhead detonation" at the end of them.
Obviously the best way of minimizing the number of events that end that way is to reduce the number of warheads. Preferably to zero. Now what's going to be the easiest way to do that? Stop someone developing a civil nuclear programme in case it gets used to develop a small number bombs at some point in the future? Or, cut the thousands of warheads we have? I know where my preference lies.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But governments miscalculate and accidents happen, and I think it's probably better if we try to minimize the number of possible chains of events that have "nuclear warhead detonation" at the end of them.
Obviously the best way of minimizing the number of events that end that way is to reduce the number of warheads. Preferably to zero. Now what's going to be the easiest way to do that? Stop someone developing a civil nuclear programme in case it gets used to develop a small number bombs at some point in the future? Or, cut the thousands of warheads we have? I know where my preference lies.
I'd be surprised if any party to the recent negotiations characterized the result as "stopping someone developing a civil nuclear program".
I'm in favor of more arms reduction, too, but I don't think that and non-proliferation are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be surprised if any party to the recent negotiations characterized the result as "stopping someone developing a civil nuclear program".
The result isn't, quite the opposite. But, the lack of a result, and the continuation of the sanctions, would have been to stop the development of a civil nuclear programme.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Injustice is frequently the pretext but it is not sufficient.
Your whole post is flawed but this sentence, in particular, makes no sense. Saying that injustice is "not sufficient" is completely different from saying it is "the pretext". The first says that injustice is a factor, although not the only factor. The second is saying that injustice isn't a factor at all.
You are right. That has not been written very clearly. The cause of terrorism is always the search for power. However it also requires some justification. The usual form of justification used is that the people they are wanting to gain power from are accused of doing some injustice to the group that they claim to represent. Whether the perceived injustice is real and whether the they really represent the group they claim to represent however are not the deciding factors. The deciding factor is whether terrorism is seen as an effective way to gain power.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always find it deeply troubling when people buy into this notion that terrorists are just people who hate our guts with some kind of irrational hatred, because it's fundamentally about saying there is nothing we can do about terrorism.
I didn't say that did I. I said terrorism was all about the search for power. That's quite a different thing from saying that quite a different thing from saying that it is motivated by irrational hatred.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is a complete lie. Over the years I've raised many times the work of Professor Robert Pape on suicide bombers in particular, demonstrating the factors that create the environment for a suicide bombing campaign. And fundamentally it is a tactic against an occupying force. If there's no occupying force, there is no suicide bombing.
He said it was a tactic used by against an occupation by a democracy, in other words that that situation is the one where that particular tactic is seen as most effective. There have been plenty of cases of terrorism where there has not been an occupying force by a democracy. Again the deciding factor is not whether the injustice is real but whether the tactics are effective for getting power. (I would also point out that 'occupying force' is a loaded term, one man's occupying force is another's legitimate government forces).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
(I would also point out that 'occupying force' is a loaded term, one man's occupying force is another's legitimate government forces).
I quite agree. But then, most motivations are subjective rather than objective.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
(I would also point out that 'occupying force' is a loaded term, one man's occupying force is another's legitimate government forces).
I quite agree. But then, most motivations are subjective rather than objective.
The motivation is always the same. The desire for power and the belief that terrorist methods are an effective way to get it. Presenting opponents as an 'occupying force' is simply part of that method.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be surprised if any party to the recent negotiations characterized the result as "stopping someone developing a civil nuclear program".
The result isn't, quite the opposite. But, the lack of a result, and the continuation of the sanctions, would have been to stop the development of a civil nuclear programme.
Really? I imagine the Iranians are quite capable of developing their own civil nuclear program, though it certainly would be easier to purchase some technology. The sanctions were intended to directly impede activities whose civil nature was precisely the issue at question, and to indirectly limit them by using economic pressure to bring Iran to negotiations. But anyway, I doubt the impact of sanctions on their civilian nuclear program was the worst part for the Iranians.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always find it deeply troubling when people buy into this notion that terrorists are just people who hate our guts with some kind of irrational hatred, because it's fundamentally about saying there is nothing we can do about terrorism.
Well lets give an example of terrorism that doesn't involve occupation. In Colombia there has been a long history of terrorist violence from both the left wing FARC and the right wing 'paramilitaries'. What do you think should be done about that kind of terrorist violence?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The motivation is always the same. The desire for power and the belief that terrorist methods are an effective way to get it. Presenting opponents as an 'occupying force' is simply part of that method.
That is not the motivation in all cases. The current century's terror is about an acquired sense of injusice, vicariously experienced by people who identify with people they view as victimised by the west, though usually without such experiences themselves. The same holds for Red Army Brigades in the 1960s and 70s. While the current identification is via Islam, it was then via perceived victims of capitalism and related economic control.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be surprised if any party to the recent negotiations characterized the result as "stopping someone developing a civil nuclear program".
The result isn't, quite the opposite. But, the lack of a result, and the continuation of the sanctions, would have been to stop the development of a civil nuclear programme.
Really? I imagine the Iranians are quite capable of developing their own civil nuclear program, though it certainly would be easier to purchase some technology.
Yes, they are capable of developing their own civil technology. But, with the sanctions they wouldn't have been able to build research reactors to test materials (which would need enriched fuel), and several other parts of the process of developing a nuclear power programme. Even purchasing enough uranium to fuel a reactor would have been a problem.
Of course, the Iranians could have just purchased an "off the shelf" reactor, like the EPR or APWR, and bought fuel elements from Europe or the US. But, that's not the same as developing a nuclear power programme - and, has all the problems associated with both designs (including that they're costing far more and taking far longer than the manufacturers state - even in China where labour costs and minimum standards are not as strict)
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd be surprised if any party to the recent negotiations characterized the result as "stopping someone developing a civil nuclear program".
The result isn't, quite the opposite. But, the lack of a result, and the continuation of the sanctions, would have been to stop the development of a civil nuclear programme.
Really? I imagine the Iranians are quite capable of developing their own civil nuclear program, though it certainly would be easier to purchase some technology.
Yes, they are capable of developing their own civil technology. But, with the sanctions they wouldn't have been able to build research reactors to test materials (which would need enriched fuel), and several other parts of the process of developing a nuclear power programme. Even purchasing enough uranium to fuel a reactor would have been a problem.
Of course, the Iranians could have just purchased an "off the shelf" reactor, like the EPR or APWR, and bought fuel elements from Europe or the US. But, that's not the same as developing a nuclear power programme - and, has all the problems associated with both designs (including that they're costing far more and taking far longer than the manufacturers state - even in China where labour costs and minimum standards are not as strict)
I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that sanctions turn out to be inconvenient for the sanctioned party.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The motivation is always the same. The desire for power and the belief that terrorist methods are an effective way to get it. Presenting opponents as an 'occupying force' is simply part of that method.
That is not the motivation in all cases. The current century's terror is about an acquired sense of injusice, vicariously experienced by people who identify with people they view as victimised by the west, though usually without such experiences themselves. The same holds for Red Army Brigades in the 1960s and 70s. While the current identification is via Islam, it was then via perceived victims of capitalism and related economic control.
Right so now we have two categories. People under foreign occupation and people who identify with people they see as victims of the west. Do Colombia's right wing paramilitaries fall into either of those two categories or do they fall into a third category?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
not exactly a disaster.
No, I suppose not, if you don't care about the people...
85,000 cancer patients not getting treatment. 40,000 hemophilia patients without clotting agents. 23,000 HIV/AIDS patients without drugs. etc. Wikipedia link.
I've heard elsewise about water-borne illnesses and infant mortality, but perhaps that isn't a disaster to some either. Thought I'd consider that it would be if it was my kid.
The very lengthy and ridiculous Cuba sanctions by USA would tend to suggest that humanitarian concerns are not really very important, so perhaps you are essentially correct
Given your strong feelings on sanctions and how they can hurt the poorest in society I take it that you were opposed to sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given your strong feelings on sanctions and how they can hurt the poorest in society I take it that you were opposed to sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.
Tell me again how not playing the Springboks at rugby killed sick black people?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given your strong feelings on sanctions and how they can hurt the poorest in society I take it that you were opposed to sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.
Tell me again how not playing the Springboks at rugby killed sick black people?
I was referring specifically to trade sanctions and the disinvestment campaign rather than the sporting sanctions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given your strong feelings on sanctions and how they can hurt the poorest in society I take it that you were opposed to sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.
Tell me again how not playing the Springboks at rugby killed sick black people?
I was referring specifically to trade sanctions and the disinvestment campaign rather than the sporting sanctions.
Were you? And which trade sanctions were these? The ones that the UK government consistently voted against and never enforced? I think the word you're looking for is 'boycott', where ordinary people refused to buy SA goods, invest in SA companies, play SA sporting teams, and protest (often being arrested for doing so) against those who did.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given your strong feelings on sanctions and how they can hurt the poorest in society I take it that you were opposed to sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.
Tell me again how not playing the Springboks at rugby killed sick black people?
I was referring specifically to trade sanctions and the disinvestment campaign rather than the sporting sanctions.
Were you? And which trade sanctions were these? The ones that the UK government consistently voted against and never enforced? I think the word you're looking for is 'boycott', where ordinary people refused to buy SA goods, invest in SA companies, play SA sporting teams, and protest (often being arrested for doing so) against those who did.
Well an organised boycott campaign is a form of sanctions. And I think the UK government of the time were right to vote against sanctions. The Apartheid system would have been on its way out anyway. As well as its cruelties it was also becoming increasing economically inefficient. It did not, for example, allow for the kind of labour market flexibility needed for South Africa's growing economy.
The main thing keeping Apartheid in place was a fear that South Africa would follow a number of other post colonial African states in falling victim to communist dictatorship. (I appreciate that you probably think that a communist dictatorship would have been an improvement on apartheid but you will appreciate that not everyone will have agreed). Once the Cold War ended there was no reason for the South African government to go ahead with the full abolition of Apartheid, which they then did and would have done without sanctions.
To the extent that sanctions and economic boycotts did damage the South African economy they would have had the most negative impact on the poorest in society rather than those in government.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, I have to admire that you're doubling-down on being categorically wrong, rather than admitting that 'sanctions' is entirely the wrong word to use, and that the Apartheid-era boycott is about the worst analogy you could use for the globally-enforced sanctions against Iran.
But you're still wrong.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I have to admire that you're doubling-down on being categorically wrong, rather than admitting that 'sanctions' is entirely the wrong word to use, and that the Apartheid-era boycott is about the worst analogy you could use for the globally-enforced sanctions against Iran.
But you're still wrong.
Well I realise that a 'boycott' is not literally the same thing as government 'sanctions', perhaps it might be better to say that sanctions are a form of state run boycott.
In any case there were state economic sanctions against South Africa. You might complain they weren't strong enough but there were plenty of calls to make such sanctions much stronger, despite the economic harm that would have done to the poorest is South African society. Do you think it was wrong in that situation to call for stronger economic sanctions?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well I realise that a 'boycott' is not literally the same thing as government 'sanctions', perhaps it might be better to say that sanctions are a form of state run boycott.
No, that's not much better. It's still wrong and in the same way.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well I realise that a 'boycott' is not literally the same thing as government 'sanctions', perhaps it might be better to say that sanctions are a form of state run boycott.
No, that's not much better. It's still wrong and in the same way.
Definition of 'Boycott'
verb
withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.
noun
a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.
So what would you call a boycott against a country run by and enforced by a government of another country?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
A boycott is something people do, voluntarily. Not something governments do. Your dictionary has let you down.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A boycott is something people do, voluntarily. Not something governments do.
Wrong. Governments boycott things all the time.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A boycott is something people do, voluntarily. Not something governments do. Your dictionary has let you down.
Really? Was the Nazi government organised Boycot of Jewish Shops in 1933 then not a boycott?
I can't find anything in any definition of the word 'boycott' that states that participation must be voluntary. It would make a pretty odd definition. For example what if you had a group of citizens voluntarily organising a boycott and then coercing others (perhaps by means of threats) to take part. Would that then cease to be a boycott and if so what would it be called?
I don't really want to get into a long discussion about the definition of the word 'boycott'. There were (as well as boycotts by private citizens) government sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s and there were calls to make them much stronger.
[ 27. July 2015, 00:33: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A boycott is something people do, voluntarily. Not something governments do. Your dictionary has let you down.
Really? Was the Nazi government organised Boycot of Jewish Shops in 1933 then not a boycott?
Was the German Democratic Republic democratic? Or indeed a republic? What the Nazis called something is not necessarily an indication of what it really was. If you (as a government) say, "let's all boycott X" and then use coercion to induce compliance, it's hardly voluntary, is it? It's then not really much of a boycott at all, it's more like a de-facto law against doing something. If it's illegal to buy absinthe in your state, would you say that by not buying it you're taking part in a boycott? That's just not how people use the word. What states do and what people do are quite different by nature. A boycott is something people do.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A boycott is something people do, voluntarily. Not something governments do. Your dictionary has let you down.
Really? Was the Nazi government organised Boycot of Jewish Shops in 1933 then not a boycott?
Was the German Democratic Republic democratic? Or indeed a republic? What the Nazis called something is not necessarily an indication of what it really was. If you (as a government) say, "let's all boycott X" and then use coercion to induce compliance, it's hardly voluntary, is it? It's then not really much of a boycott at all, it's more like a de-facto law against doing something. If it's illegal to buy absinthe in your state, would you say that by not buying it you're taking part in a boycott? That's just not how people use the word. What states do and what people do are quite different by nature. A boycott is something people do.
That distinction assumes that states are the only bodies capable of using violence or threats of violence to enforce a boycott and that private individuals, trade unions or activist organisations are incapable of doing so. Lets look at the very case that defined the word 'boycott'
"Boycott's young nephew, for example, was intimidated when he tried to collect the mail abandoned by the usual post boy"
link Does that mean that the original 'boycott' was not a boycott because it was at least in one instance enforced by intimidation?
Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread it is clear to me that many of those condemning sanctions against Iran were themselves calling for strengthening of sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s so it is not consistent for them to claim that they are opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread it is clear to me that many of those condemning sanctions against Iran were themselves calling for strengthening of sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s so it is not consistent for them to claim that they are opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions.
No, you're still wrong. The ANC were calling for sanctions and boycotts, knowing full well the economic impact it would have on them and their members.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you having to consider other people's views.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Nobody is saying that the sanctions / boycott (whatever you want to call it) against South Africa were a *good* thing. Necessary perhaps, but not good. This wasn't a good situation for the country to be in.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread it is clear to me that many of those condemning sanctions against Iran were themselves calling for strengthening of sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s so it is not consistent for them to claim that they are opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions.
No, you're still wrong. The ANC were calling for sanctions and boycotts, knowing full well the economic impact it would have on them and their members.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you having to consider other people's views.
I am fully aware of what the ANC policy was. There were other anti-Apartheid parties at the time in South Africa who were against the sanctions, in particular the Progressive Federal Party/Democratic Party and the Inkatha Freedom Party. My point is that those that supported the ANC line on sanctions at the time are being hypocritical if they claim to be opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions.
[ 27. July 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Who said they "opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions"? Generally IME, people who call for sanctions or boycotts do so knowing that there will be hardship as a result, but that that hardship is recognised as a necessary step to end a greater hardship. Is it so hard to believe that black South Africans were prepared to endure the hardship of a boycott if it helped end the greater injustice and hardship of apartheid?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I am fully aware of what the ANC policy was.
Since we have to be dragging these things out of you, one admission at a time, I think you're probably looking each of these things up on wikipedia when they get mentioned.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Ahem.
/hosting
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who said they "opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions"? Generally IME, people who call for sanctions or boycotts do so knowing that there will be hardship as a result, but that that hardship is recognised as a necessary step to end a greater hardship. Is it so hard to believe that black South Africans were prepared to endure the hardship of a boycott if it helped end the greater injustice and hardship of apartheid?
Well those black South Africans who supported the ANC supported sanctions and those that supported the IFP would have opposed them. For the most part they were, through no fault of their own, not highly educated or informed about these kinds of issues. They would have followed the lead of their political leaders.
The question is why the largest anti-apartheid party supported sanctions whilst two others, the PFP and the IFP opposed sanctions. Why did they produce such different analysis about the same problem? Well the obvious answer was that they had different self interests. The ANC was a party of the left whilst the PFP and IFP were on the center-right. Policies that increase poverty will tend to benefit parties of the left as people who are in poverty or economic dependency are more likely to support parties of the left and less likely to support parties of the center right.
By the eighties at the latest the ANC would have had a further reason to support the strengthening of sanctions. By that time it was quite clear that apartheid was on the way out and that the ANC had established itself as the dominant political party amongst the black majority. This meant that they knew that an ANC dominated government was just a matter of time. In this situation economically damaging sanctions would have had a further benefit for the ANC. It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Of course you could say that the positions of the PFP and the IFP were just as much motivated by self interest in the other direction. My point is don't assume that any of these parties, including the ANC, took the positions they did on this issue because of pure motives.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Economic activity is the product of human interactions. Isn't all economic activity "artificial"?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The fundamental mistake here is thinking in aback and white terms: either you're generally for sanctions, or you're generally against them.
Like I and others have said: sanctions are never a good thing. They are messy, and you often hurt the wrong people with them. So, nobody is 'for' sanctions as in "they are a good thing". At most, they are a necessary evil. Therefore, I wouldn't be glad if sanctions were to return to Iran.
To me, whether this necessary evil is justified can't very well be decided based on general. They need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Does some part of the population ask for the sanctions? Do they have effect? Do they do more harm than good? Are partial embargos better than general embargos? It's hard to give a general rule to weigh these effects.
In hindsight I think that in the South African case, the balance tips over to "the sanctions were justified" (no, I'm not going to discuss this case in detail). In the Iran case, my opinion is: "I hope we won't need to talk about sanctions again."
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Economic activity is the product of human interactions. Isn't all economic activity "artificial"?
That's true. t doesn't alter the fact that, as was the case with the 'armed struggle' policy, the ANC's motives for its policy would have been less than pure. Just because the ANC advocated sanctions doesn't automatically mean that sanctions were justified.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Economic activity is the product of human interactions. Isn't all economic activity "artificial"?
That's true. It doesn't alter the fact that, as was the case with the 'armed struggle' policy, the ANC's motives for its policy would have been less than pure.
Sorry, still not getting whatever point you're trying to make here. What are you using as a standard for "purity"? Are you claiming that the ANC didn't really support sanctions, or that they did support sanctions but did so for motives you dislike, or that only some of them supported sanctions while a minority of their adherents opposed them?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Economic activity is the product of human interactions. Isn't all economic activity "artificial"?
That's true. It doesn't alter the fact that, as was the case with the 'armed struggle' policy, the ANC's motives for its policy would have been less than pure.
Sorry, still not getting whatever point you're trying to make here. What are you using as a standard for "purity"? Are you claiming that the ANC didn't really support sanctions, or that they did support sanctions but did so for motives you dislike, or that only some of them supported sanctions while a minority of their adherents opposed them?
No I'm saying that the ANC did support them but, as with the 'armed struggle', its primary motivation for doing this was to promote its own power as a party rather than concern for the interests of its supporters. I mention this because Doc Tor suggested that the fact that the ANC supported sanctions was evidence that the sanctions were justified.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
That's true. It doesn't alter the fact that, as was the case with the 'armed struggle' policy, the ANC's motives for its policy would have been less than pure.
Sorry, still not getting whatever point you're trying to make here. What are you using as a standard for "purity"? Are you claiming that the ANC didn't really support sanctions, or that they did support sanctions but did so for motives you dislike, or that only some of them supported sanctions while a minority of their adherents opposed them?
No I'm saying that the ANC did support them but, as with the 'armed struggle', its primary motivation for doing this was to promote its own power as a party rather than concern for the interests of its supporters.
Sorry, still not getting it. Didn't the supporters of the ANC consider it in their interest for the ANC to accumulate power? That's what we usually mean when someone is described as a "supporter" of a political organization.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
That's true. It doesn't alter the fact that, as was the case with the 'armed struggle' policy, the ANC's motives for its policy would have been less than pure.
Sorry, still not getting whatever point you're trying to make here. What are you using as a standard for "purity"? Are you claiming that the ANC didn't really support sanctions, or that they did support sanctions but did so for motives you dislike, or that only some of them supported sanctions while a minority of their adherents opposed them?
No I'm saying that the ANC did support them but, as with the 'armed struggle', its primary motivation for doing this was to promote its own power as a party rather than concern for the interests of its supporters.
Sorry, still not getting it. Didn't the supporters of the ANC consider it in their interest for the ANC to accumulate power? That's what we usually mean when someone is described as a "supporter" of a political organization.
Well yes they would consider that. Doesn't mean they would be correct to consider that or that everything a party does to get power is in its supporters interest.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
I would add that that is what the 'armed struggle' was about. It wasn't about speeding up liberation, it was militarily rather ineffective and indeed it may have slowed it down by increasing white fears of Congo-style massacres and dictatorship. Its primary purpose was to establish the ANC's reputation as a 'liberation party', to help it gain power after apartheid ended. In the 1980s, during the so called township war it served as an excellent pretext for violence against other political groups to establish psychological domination of the black population through intimidation and propaganda.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, still not getting it. Didn't the supporters of the ANC consider it in their interest for the ANC to accumulate power? That's what we usually mean when someone is described as a "supporter" of a political organization.
Well yes they would consider that. Doesn't mean they would be correct to consider that or that everything a party does to get power is in its supporters interest.
So your argument is that support for the ANC was really a kind of "false consciousness" and their supporters were better off under the Apartheid regime? Sounds like a tough case to make, but feel free to expand it.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, still not getting it. Didn't the supporters of the ANC consider it in their interest for the ANC to accumulate power? That's what we usually mean when someone is described as a "supporter" of a political organization.
Well yes they would consider that. Doesn't mean they would be correct to consider that or that everything a party does to get power is in its supporters interest.
So your argument is that support for the ANC was really a kind of "false consciousness" and their supporters were better off under the Apartheid regime? Sounds like a tough case to make, but feel free to expand it.
No need to bring in marxist notions of 'false consciousness'. Low information (o even not so low information) political supporters being manipulated by political leaders is something that happens all over the world. It doesn't need to be described with marxist terminology.
My point is that apartheid would have come to an end anyway with or without the ANC. That the actions taken by the ANC during the later years of apartheid were more motivated by the desire to maximise their power after the inevitable end of apartheid than they were motivated by
to do what was best for their supporters (something they had in common with politicians the world over). That there were and are a range of anti apartheid parties in South Africa and that the millions of low information voters who trot out dutifully every election to vote ANC without thinking too much about why they support them (like many voters the world over) are not necessarily voting in their best interest.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
No need to bring in marxist notions of 'false consciousness'. Low information (o even not so low information) political supporters being manipulated by political leaders is something that happens all over the world. It doesn't need to be described with marxist terminology.
I'd argue that brevity makes it necessary. It's an idea you're obviously appealing to, and it's a lot easier to type "false consciousness" than it is to repeatedly type out "[l]ow information (or even not so low information) political supporters being manipulated by political leaders". Even abbreviating it as LI(oensli)PSBMBPL is more time consuming (and a lot more baffling to anyone picking up the thread in the middle). If you've got an easier descriptor for the phenomenon you're describing go ahead and suggest it, but LI(oensli)PSBMBPL isn't really going to cut it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that apartheid would have come to an end anyway with or without the ANC.
This seems like it's assuming your conclusions rather than demonstrating it. While it may be possible that Apartheid would have ended without the ANC specifically, its fall doesn't seem like the kind of thing that can just "happen" without a lot of efforts by a lot of different people and groups, which gets back to your argument about sanctions.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
No need to bring in marxist notions of 'false consciousness'. Low information (o even not so low information) political supporters being manipulated by political leaders is something that happens all over the world. It doesn't need to be described with marxist terminology.
I'd argue that brevity makes it necessary. It's an idea you're obviously appealing to.
No, its a marxist idea that is used by them to describe the failure of workers to identify with marxism. I don't intend to adopt marxist ideology or terminology. If you want a shorthand way of saying what I'm saying you could simply say that party supporters are being conned.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that apartheid would have come to an end anyway with or without the ANC.
This seems like it's assuming your conclusions rather than demonstrating it. While it may be possible that Apartheid would have ended without the ANC specifically, its fall doesn't seem like the kind of thing that can just "happen" without a lot of efforts by a lot of different people and groups, which gets back to your argument about sanctions.
It ended because it was increasing economically antiquated as it did not allow for labour market flexibility. That what weakened apartheid. The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
[ 27. July 2015, 23:16: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, still not getting it. Didn't the supporters of the ANC consider it in their interest for the ANC to accumulate power? That's what we usually mean when someone is described as a "supporter" of a political organization.
Well yes they would consider that. Doesn't mean they would be correct to consider that or that everything a party does to get power is in its supporters interest.
So your argument is that support for the ANC was really a kind of "false consciousness" and their supporters were better off under the Apartheid regime? Sounds like a tough case to make, but feel free to expand it.
I would also point out that part of the reason for the huge dominance of the ANC amongst the black population was the use by the ANC of murder and intimidation against rival parties such as AZAPO, the PAC and, of course, the IFP which degraded their ability to function and intimidated their supporters. By combining this violence with propaganda blaming the rival parties themselves for starting the violence this combination helped cement their psychological domination of the population.
[ 28. July 2015, 00:34: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The motivation is always the same. The desire for power and the belief that terrorist methods are an effective way to get it. Presenting opponents as an 'occupying force' is simply part of that method.
That is not the motivation in all cases. The current century's terror is about an acquired sense of injusice, vicariously experienced by people who identify with people they view as victimised by the west, though usually without such experiences themselves. The same holds for Red Army Brigades in the 1960s and 70s. While the current identification is via Islam, it was then via perceived victims of capitalism and related economic control.
Right so now we have two categories. People under foreign occupation and people who identify with people they see as victims of the west. Do Colombia's right wing paramilitaries fall into either of those two categories or do they fall into a third category?
I feel I should clear something up here, because this and a couple of other posts seem to be labouring under a misconception of what I said.
I said that being under foreign occupation was a motivation for a suicide bombing campaign.
I then, in my last post, agreed that the idea of an "occupying force" was subjective - that it was about a perception of being under foreign occupation.
At no stage did I suggest that being under foreign occupation was a motivation for terrorism generally. It was you, Bibliophile, that made an assertion about the motivation for terrorism generally. My observation was strictly confined to suicide bombing campaigns, because that was the specific topic of the research I was referring to.
Anyway, this is arguably all a bit of an aside.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
[citation needed]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
[citation needed]
quote:
as the white skilled-labor shortage worsened, the government became ever more impatient with white trade unions which were hampering the training of blacks and thus blocking black advances into skilled jobs. In 1973 it was announced that blacks, including Africans, could do skilled work in the white areas. The government did not rigorously adhere to its promise that it would consult with white trade unions before making this decision. In 1975 the defence force announced that black soldiers would enjoy the same status as whites of equal rank, and that whites would have to take orders from black officers.
(Giliomee and Schlemmer 1989, p. 124)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html (do read the full article linked to)
These happened before any major sanctions had been implemented, before the Soweto uprising and all the events that followed it.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
We've gone way off topic here so I've started a new thread on the topic of the ANC and South Africa if anyone wants to continue that discussion there.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In this situation economically damaging sanctions would have had a further benefit for the ANC. It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It ended because it was increasing economically antiquated as it did not allow for labour market flexibility. That what weakened apartheid. The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. Sanctions are "economically damaging" and removing them would cause an "economic boom", but have no effect on the stability of the Apartheid state. What really did it in was a lack of "labour market flexibility", something which you'd think would be inherent in such a system from the start and should have caused problems, if it was going to cause problems at all, long before the actual collapse. So let's look at the actual performance of the South African economy. 1984 seems to be when the sanctions movement really started to pick up steam, so how did the South African economy perform from 1978 to 1983 compared with its performance from 1985 to 1990?
Well, from 1978 to 1983 the South African GDP grew from $139 billion* to $158 billion*, which comes out to an annual growth rate of about 2.7%. The five years prior to that (1973-1978) saw an annual real GDP growth rate of 2.6%. Not great, but not that bad for a multi-year period. For the sake of comparison the UK's real GDP growth for the same periods was 1.4% and 1.0% respectively, so whatever negative effects South Africa's unfavorable "labour market flexibility" had seem to be less of a disadvantage than being British.
So what does South African real GDP growth look like from 1985 to 1990? It comes in at 1.7% per year, so it looks like the sanctions regime cost the South African state about a percentage point of real GDP growth per year. That's pretty big and can really add up over the long haul. UK real GDP growth for the same period was 3.5%. For the rest of the Apartheid period (1990 to 1993, the last full year of Apartheid government) real South African GDP actually shrank (-0.7%/year), something you'd expect from an extended period of sanctions as stockpiles were slowly exhausted.
After the end of sanctions, the South African economy seems to have returned to its original real GDP growth baseline, increasing by about 2.8% per year from 1995 to 2000. (Our comparative UK real GDP growth rate is 1.7% for the same time period.)
So your claim about lack of "labour market flexibility" seems like a Just So Story built to accommodate a pre-existing ideology. While it's true that the South African labor market was fairly inflexible during the Apartheid years, there's no real evidence that this hurt the economy, let alone hurt it enough to topple the government.
--------------------
*All values given in inflation-adjusted year 2000 U.S. dollars.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0