Iran and the right to defend themselves

nacho libre · 02-05-2010 08:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

fashionable dislike of the US where you search for any reason to put them down.

hmm "fashionable dislike" perhaps some people are critical of the US due to having an informed opinion on the history of American foreign policy rather than it being the cool new trend to bash America at any opportunity.
I will commend the US military for what they did in Haiti. However, unlike old aussie, i'll not turn a blind eye or try to minimize their disgraceful actions in places like Central America in the eighties.

northwest100 · 02-05-2010 09:46PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Really?

Would you care to cite a date that either the order was given, or the date that it took effect? Would you care to even provide a reference to the order of disbandment?

You already know.

I can only assume you're arguing about it is because you've got nothing else substantial, it's pretty weak.

CPA#2 - Dissolution of Entities, which you already mentioned was an order to disband the police force by decree.

Erm. You said 'US foreign companies'. The companies which won the bidding are not US, and the big ones weren't even from countries which supported the invasion to begin with. That doesn't seem to support the theory that the US went in to get oil for US companies.

:rolleyes:

You're really scraping the barrel now, Manic Moran.
It's almost like listening to Bill O Reilly or Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Either these contracts existed before US invasion or since the 2007 oil law was revised, because the 2007 law ensured the US would control ~66% of known oil fields, that is absolutely correct, whether you like it or not.

Why not provide some links to the contracts you're referring to?

Manic Moran · 03-05-2010 01:28AM

northwest100 wrote: »

You already know.

I can only assume you're arguing about it is because you've got nothing else substantial, it's pretty weak.

CPA#2 - Dissolution of Entities, which you already mentioned was an order to disband the police force by decree.

Here is the text of CPA #2.
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/ia/docs/dissolution-English.pdf

Show me where it says 'police' or 'Ministry of the Interior.'

You're really scraping the barrel now, Manic Moran.
It's almost like listening to Bill O Reilly or Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Either these contracts existed before US invasion or since the 2007 oil law was revised, because the 2007 law ensured the US would control ~66% of known oil fields, that is absolutely correct, whether you like it or not.

Why not provide some links to the contracts you're referring to?

Without casting aspersions over who you sound like..

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields
By Vivienne Walt Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction

In one of the biggest auctions held anywhere in the 150-year history of the oil industry, executives from across the world flew into Baghdad on Dec. 11 for a two-day, red-carpet ceremony at the Oil Ministry, broadcast live in Iraq. With U.S. military helicopters hovering overhead to help ward off a possible insurgent attack, Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahrastani unsealed envelopes from each company, stating how much oil it would produce, and what it was willing to accept in payment from Iraq's government. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

<snip>

Or if you prefer a European source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8409473.stm

<snip>
Earlier, a joint bid by Russian and Norwegian oil firms won the contract for the "supergiant" West Qurna field, said to have reserves of 13bn barrels.

Lukoil and Statoil will get $1.15 a barrel and will work to raise output from West Qurna Phase 2, in the Basra region, to 1.8m bpd. In June, a winning bid to develop another Iraqi field received $2 a barrel.

On Friday, the contract to develop the 12.6bn-barrel Majnoon field in southern Iraq was won by a consortium led by Shell. It also pledged to increase daily production to 1.8m barrels, up from only 46,000.

Rights for the eastern Halfaya field, with 4.1bn barrels of reserves, went to a consortium led by the Chinese state oil company, CNPC

Your next departure from actuality, please?

NTM

northwest100 · 03-05-2010 02:11AM

Manic Moran wrote:

Show me where it says 'police' or 'Ministry of the Interior.'

Good point, i'm glad you brought this up.
At the bottom of the document, it says:

All organisations subordinate to the Dissolved Entities are also dissolved.

So then.. who or what were MOI subordinate to and what dissolved entities were part of the Ministry of Interior?

I rest my case.

Well, i'd like a good answer if you have one.

Your next departure from actuality, please?

lol

clearly i was discussing the iraq oil law of 2007 and everything i said was 100% correct which i stand by.

i would need to investigate the conditions of the latest iraq oil law before commenting further on it since i don't know of the terms in it.

but i seriously doubt the US have been cut out of any of the major oil deals.
if i'm wrong, i'll accept your correction, if not.. as your governer would say, "i'll be back" :P

Manic Moran · 03-05-2010 04:08AM

northwest100 wrote: »

Good point, i'm glad you brought this up.
At the bottom of the document, it says:

All organisations subordinate to the Dissolved Entities are also dissolved.

So then.. who or what were MOI subordinate to and what dissolved entities were part of the Ministry of Interior?

I rest my case.

MOI were and are subordinate to no other organisation. They were and are an independent ministry, and one which was never disbanded. To your second question, I see no organisation in that list which jumps out at me as having been a subordinate organisation to the Ministory of Interior, but even if they were, they weren't the police.

See, for example, this document from 2008: (Development and Reform of the Iraqi Police Forces)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub840.pdf

unlike the Army, the police were never attacked or disbanded by
Coalition forces.

clearly i was discussing the iraq oil law of 2007 and everything i said was 100% correct which i stand by.

Well, here's what you said.

Since the invasion and Iraq Oil Law of 2007, just 17 of 80 Iraq oil fields are under puppet state control, with the rest given to US foreign companies.

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, the proposed law of 2007 was never passed, thus is in practical terms irrelevant, and secondly, all the oil fields are the property of the State, with the various oil companies given licensing rights to extract the oil for a fee, as explained in the Time article I linked to earlier.

NTM

03-05-2010 02:10PM

nacho libre wrote: »

hmm "fashionable dislike" perhaps some people are critical of the US due to having an informed opinion on the history of American foreign policy rather than it being the cool new trend to bash America at any opportunity.
I will commend the US military for what they did in Haiti. However, unlike old aussie, i'll not turn a blind eye or try to minimize their disgraceful actions in places like Central America in the eighties.

And I'd totally agree with you. I hate what they did with Guantanamo Bay, the invasion of Iraq, their subsequent handling of the situation, etc.

But I find that some people seek any reason to attack the US. Like the stealing of Oil thingy... The practicalities of the situation mean that its highly unlikely that they went in there for the oil. It's possible, sure.. but there are more plausible reasons.

northwest100 · 03-05-2010 04:00PM

Manic Moran wrote:

MOI were and are subordinate to no other organisation. They were and are an independent ministry, and one which was never disbanded. To your second question, I see no organisation in that list which jumps out at me as having been a subordinate organisation to the Ministory of Interior, but even if they were, they weren't the police.

"subordinate to no other organisation" -- ha! that's what we're led to believe, that's your opinion but not exactly fact.
There's no way you can prove they weren't subordinate to any of the entities which were dissolved.

Ministry of Interior was hardly "independent" in a country like Iraq with Saddam Hussein, one of CIA's attack dogs in charge...

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, the proposed law of 2007 was never passed, thus is in practical terms irrelevant, and secondly, all the oil fields are the property of the State, with the various oil companies given licensing rights to extract the oil for a fee, as explained in the Time article I linked to earlier.

The oil law of 2007 is completely relevant to what we're discussing since it proves US/UK companies were initially lined up to control the large amounts of oil in that country..denying this is silly.

And Time magazine? ffs! these guys made Ben Bernanke "Person of the year 2009", a year that will be remembered for record bonus payments to fraudsters on wall street.

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts - June 2008

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.
The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.
Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.
The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.
The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

Iraq Cancels Six No-Bid Oil Contracts - September 2008

Iraq’s oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters at an OPEC summit meeting in Vienna on Tuesday that talks with Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Total, BP and several smaller companies for one-year deals, which were announced in June and subsequently delayed, had dragged on for so long that the companies could not now fulfill the work within that time frame. The companies confirmed on Wednesday that the deals had been canceled.

The question is: Why were the contracts cancelled?

Did Big Oil Win the War in Iraq?

Before the Invasion
In January 2000, 10 days into President George W. Bush’s first term, representatives of the largest oil and energy companies joined the new administration to form the Cheney Energy Task Force. As part of its deliberations, the task force reviewed a series of lists titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts” naming more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with contracts in various stages of negotiation.
None of contracts were with American nor major British companies, and none could take effect while the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq remained in place. Three countries held the largest contracts: China, Russia and France — all members of the Security Council and all in a position to advocate for the end of sanctions.
Were Saddam to remain in power and the sanctions to be removed, these contracts would take effect, and the U.S. and its closest ally would be shut out of Iraq’s great oil bonanza.

After the Invasion
The invasion of Iraq dealt handily with the problem of U.S. and British exclusion. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and other major oil companies met with the Iraqi government on countless occasions, and the Iraqis tried to make deals.
But the oil companies, backed aggressively by the Bush administration, steadfastly insisted that contracts would only be signed after the Iraq Oil Law was passed. They nearly prevailed on several occasions, but organized resistance in and outside of Iraq has continually stymied the law’s passage.
Several forces have conspired to bring the oil companies to the negotiating table today.
Most recently and significantly, Iraq’s Parliament has refused to even consider the law until after the January 2010 elections. It is quite likely that a new government hostile to the interests of foreign (particularly U.S. and British) oil companies could come to power in those elections, making passage of the law much less likely. The deals being offered today would be the best the companies would be likely to get.
President Barack Obama and his administration have been vocal and active proponents of the law’s passage. However, this administration’s allegiance to the oil industry is not as steadfast as that of its predecessor.

BP and CNPC finalized the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel Rumaila field.
ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia’s Lukoil and junior partner ConocoPhillips for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project.
Italy’s Eni SpA, with California’s Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp., was awarded Iraq’s Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels.
Japan’s Nippon Corp., leading a consortium of Japanese companies including Inpex Corp. and JGC Corp., is at an advanced stage in talks to win the Nassiriyah oil field.
Shell, with partners CNPC and the Turkish Petroleum Corp., is also in discussions for the giant Kirkuk oil field, although negotiations have been delayed until after Iraq’s January elections.

But I find that some people seek any reason to attack the US. Like the stealing of Oil thingy... The practicalities of the situation mean that its highly unlikely that they went in there for the oil. It's possible, sure.. but there are more plausible reasons.

So what are the more plausible reasons? why not share them?

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director.

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. (1914 - 1963) But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.

Iraq is once again a target of US regime change. Despite that, precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder, all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the first time in Iraq.

One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute regime change in Iraq.

Manic Moran · 03-05-2010 06:09PM

Mate, this is a fairly simple boolean proposition.

Either the police were or were not dissolved. Either the Iraqi oil fields are under the control of US companies, or they are not.

The answers to the above have been provided in clear and simple terms, and they are contrary to your position on the matter.

NTM

northwest100 · 03-05-2010 06:24PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Either the police were or were not dissolved. Either the Iraqi oil fields are under the control of US companies, or they are not.

It has already been made clear that any organization subordinate to the dissolved entities were also dissolved, this included the police force along with other parts of the Ministry of Interior.

What don't you understand?

You are the only person I've encountered who argues this is untrue.

The answers to the above have been provided in clear and simple terms, and they are contrary to your position on the matter.

Your opinion is contrary to my own, that does not mean it's FACT.

Talk about arrogance.

Manic Moran · 03-05-2010 08:17PM

northwest100 wrote: »

It has already been made clear that any organization subordinate to the dissolved entities were also dissolved, this included the police force along with other parts of the Ministry of Interior.

What don't you understand?

I don't understand why you are convinced that the list below covers any organisation which controlled the police, Ministry of Interior, or even any organisation subordinate to the Ministry of Interior.

Ministry of Defense
Ministry of Information
Ministry of State for Military Affairs
Iraqi Intelligence Service
National Security Bureau
Directorate of General Security
Special Security Organization

Entities affiliated with Hussein bodyguards:
Murafaqin (Companions)
Himaya al Khasa (Special Guard)

Military organizations
Iraqi Army, Air Force, Navy, the Air Defense Force, and other regular military services
Iraqi Republican Guard
Iraqi Special Republican Guard
Directorate of Military Intelligence
Al Quds Force
Emergency Forces (Quwat al Tawari)

Paramilitaries
Fedayeen Saddam
Ba'ath Party Militia
Friends of Saddam
Saddam's Lion Cubs (Ashbal Saddam)

Other
Presidential Diwan
Presidential Secretariat
Revolutionary Command Council
The National Assembly
The Youth Organization (al-Futuwah)
National Olympic Committee
Revolutionary, Special and National Security Courts

Here's what I would like you to do. Please quote the above list in your next response, and highlight in bold the appropriate organisation which you think would cover the police force as a subordinate entity.

You are the only person I've encountered who argues this is untrue.

I'm beginning to think that it's because I'm a slow learner and other people have concluded that you are so detached from reality that they've quickly learned not to bother.

Your opinion is contrary to my own, that does not mean it's FACT.

Talk about arrogance.

I have quoted chapter and verse directly on point. My position is objectively more sustainable to yours, which has not provided any evidence to support either of your two claims.

NTM

northwest100 · 03-05-2010 08:49PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Here's what I would like you to do. Please quote the above list in your next response, and highlight in bold the appropriate organisation which you think would cover the police force as a subordinate entity.

How about you highlight in bold the organizations which weren't part of ministry of interior and who weren't in command of the police force?

Your response was "None spring to mind" FACT is, you don't know.

Seriously MM, if this is all you have to argue about, there's really no point taking the discussion any further.

My position is objectively more sustainable to yours..

I'm detached from reality?

nacho libre · 03-05-2010 09:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd totally agree with you. I hate what they did with Guantanamo Bay, the invasion of Iraq, their subsequent handling of the situation, etc.

But I find that some people seek any reason to attack the US. Like the stealing of Oil thingy... The practicalities of the situation mean that its highly unlikely that they went in there for the oil. It's possible, sure.. but there are more plausible reasons.

Well as you suggest we can't know for sure why they went into Iraq, but given their history of supporting dictators and coups against democratically elected governments, I remain doubtful humanitarian reasons and a love of democracy were at the forefront of their thinking in removing Saddam.

anymore · 03-05-2010 11:10PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Well as you suggest we can't know for sure why they went into Iraq, but given their history of supporting dictators and coups against democratically elected governments, I remain doubtful humanitarian reasons and a love of democracy were at the forefront of their thinking in removing Saddam.

Presumably that is why they invaded Panama and removed the democratically elected Manuel Norieaga and replaced him with a puppet Government and why they also installed Puppet Governments in South Korea, Japan, the Philipines and Germany.

northwest100 · 04-05-2010 12:17AM

how about reading this here

by the way, i'm not anti-american just because i don't agree with invading a country and killing civilians for oil.

plenty of americans feel the same way and are always labelled traitors or unpatriotic.i've got nothing against american people at all, it's the kleptocrats and oligarchs like bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perel..etc PNAC, CFR.. these people and groups are nothing but a disease on the world.

ask republican Ron Paul what he thinks of CIA and how they're the most dangerous organization in the world today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM

plenty of good intelligent americans completely disagree with what their government are doing, the only section that doesn't are too brainwashed or badly informed by the media.

WakeUp · 04-05-2010 02:43AM

The Persian's are not stupid. They know they are in the cross-hairs of the US, and have been for the last 20 years, it is only now that the military infrastructure and sustained capability to attack is possible as a result of operation "Iraqi slaughter for oil" or what the Americans like to call "Iraqi freedom". The crusade in Afghanistan to catch the mythical mountain men also aided their preparedness.

Iran is surrounded on all sides by the American's, the British and NATO forces.

The American's have 90 B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs based at the Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO and the country borders Iran.

Then you have Israel with their vast nuclear arsenal.

In the most recent NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) the Obama administration has reduced the threat of using nuclear weapons against countries who are signatories of the above treaty. It has however EXCLUDED NPT signatory Iran from threat reduction.

During the release of the current NPT, US Secretary of defence Robert Gates said the following,

"The NPR has a very strong message for both Iran and North Korea, because whether it's in declaratory policy or in other elements of NPR, we essentially carve out states like Iran and North Korea that are not in compliance with NPT"

"Basically all options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category"

Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor the capability to construct them let alone deliver their payloads.

Once again it is the US and its stooges playing the role of Judge, Jury and executioner, but this time the well being of the entire planet is at stake.

anymore · 04-05-2010 01:55PM

northwest100 wrote: »

how about reading this here

by the way, i'm not anti-american just because i don't agree with invading a country and killing civilians for oil.

plenty of americans feel the same way and are always labelled traitors or unpatriotic.i've got nothing against american people at all, it's the kleptocrats and oligarchs like bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perel..etc PNAC, CFR.. these people and groups are nothing but a disease on the world.

ask republican Ron Paul what he thinks of CIA and how they're the most dangerous organization in the world today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM

plenty of good intelligent americans completely disagree with what their government are doing, the only section that doesn't are too brainwashed or badly informed by the media.

Have you not noticed that Bush is no longer President ?

Nodin · 04-05-2010 02:16PM

anymore wrote: »

Presumably that is why they invaded Panama and removed the democratically elected Manuel Norieaga and replaced him with a puppet Government and why they also installed Puppet Governments in South Korea, Japan, the Philipines and Germany.

South Korea was a dictatorship for decades, as was the Phillipines.

Are you saying that the US doesn't support dictatorships when it suits its purposes?

northwest100 · 04-05-2010 02:23PM

anymore wrote:

Have you not noticed that Bush is no longer President ?

CIA are lawless organized scum, who answer to no one.

America is run by a 2 party 1 headed system of kleptocrats.

There's really no difference between the current and previous administrations except Obama's a more elegant speaker.

dlofnep · 04-05-2010 02:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

South Korea was a dictatorship for decades, as was the Phillipines.

Are you saying that the US doesn't support dictatorships when it suits its purposes?

Batista in Cuba for one

nacho libre · 04-05-2010 03:36PM

anymore wrote: »

Presumably that is why they invaded Panama and removed the democratically elected Manuel Norieaga and replaced him with a puppet Government

i'm surprised you brought him up

would it not have been more covenient for you just to leave him out?

anymore, why do you even try to deny these things, when the CIA in their own recently released archives have admitted to such things

the_syco · 04-05-2010 03:57PM

Seeing how they build stuff by reverse engineering stuff in the past, shows that even with the sanctions, they can make stuff.

And thus, I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to make a nuke of some sort. Or at least reverse engineer the "Club-K missile attack system". Getting the correct materials, and testing it without letting the Americans know is a different kettle of fish, though.

BluePlanet · 04-05-2010 04:29PM

the_syco wrote: »

Seeing how they build stuff by reverse engineering stuff in the past, shows that even with the sanctions, they can make stuff.

And thus, I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to make a nuke of some sort. Or at least reverse engineer the "Club-K missile attack system". Getting the correct materials, and testing it without letting the Americans know is a different kettle of fish, though.

Your premise would require that they possess a nuke to "reverse engineer" in the first place.

Manic Moran · 04-05-2010 05:19PM

I don't think they lack the technology to build a nuke. Bear in mind that A-Bombs were built almost 70 years ago. Would you not agree that Iran and its knowledge and technology bases are greater than the US's would have been in 1944? Delivery systems they have, not ICBMs, but they'll reach Europe.

NTM

anymore · 05-05-2010 09:36AM

nacho libre wrote: »

i'm surprised you brought him up would it not have been more covenient for you just to leave him out?

anymore, why do you even try to deny these things, when the CIA in their own recently released archives have admitted to such things

Do you all imagine that the world was some idylic haven full of peace and harmony before the US became the world's superpower? Do you think international plotting and interference in the affairs of other countries was something invented by the Americans ?

It was US which rescued Europe from world's most destructive bloody conflicts and which has allowed us all to sit here at our computers pontificating and generally trying to sound as if our opinions had the remotest effect on the world outside is run.
I suggest buying or borrowing some history book setting out the realities of the world before US let us here in Ireland to shelter under her protection and to enjoy the illusion that we are independent and ' neutral'.

anymore · 05-05-2010 09:40AM

northwest100 wrote: »

CIA are lawless organized scum, who answer to no one.

America is run by a 2 party 1 headed system of kleptocrats.

There's really no difference between the current and previous administrations except Obama's a more elegant speaker.

Would you prefer the world was run from Washington, Moscow or Beijing ?
There arent anyother choices.

Nodin · 05-05-2010 10:13AM

anymore wrote: »

Do you all imagine that the world was some idylic haven full of peace and harmony before the US became the world's superpower? Do you think international plotting and interference in the affairs of other countries was something invented by the Americans ?

Thats not the issue. Somebody brought up the fact that the US has done great harm in its FP. Rather than acknowledge that fact, you deny it, with a rejoinder that further highlights US interference. Then you switch tack and say 'O the rest would be just as bad' - again, without admitting that the original statement was correct.

BluePlanet · 05-05-2010 10:22AM

anymore wrote: »

It was US which rescued Europe from world's most destructive bloody conflicts and which has allowed us all to sit here at our computers pontificating and generally trying to sound as if our opinions had the remotest effect on the world outside is run.
I suggest buying or borrowing some history book setting out the realities of the world before US let us here in Ireland to shelter under her protection and to enjoy the illusion that we are independent and ' neutral'.

What a load of nonesense.
It was the Russians that defeated Germany.
The USA only got involved in the very end to try and get a seat at the winners circle. Not for our particular benefit.

BluePlanet · 05-05-2010 10:24AM

anymore wrote: »

Would you prefer the world was run from Washington, Moscow or Beijing ?
There arent anyother choices.

Moscow can't, and Beijing has no interest.
The only meglomanical party is the USA.

nacho libre · 05-05-2010 04:24PM

anymore wrote: »

Do you all imagine that the world was some idylic haven full of peace and harmony before the US became the world's superpower? Do you think international plotting and interference in the affairs of other countries was something invented by the Americans ?

.

well it seems you are now not denying they have supported coups against democratically elected governments and given support to dictators, who had the 'right' policies, while denouncing and sometimes removing others that did not.

so i suspect this is why we have arrived at the old moral relativism defense and the errant child caught misbehaving tactic?
In others words rather than take responsibility for his/her actions the blame is deflected elsewhere in attempt at mitigation. in this case it appears to be that you are defending America by comparing them to other powerful nations and how worse it would be if they were in control.

What you can't accept, or perhaps are unwilling to accept, is the reality that Russian and US military actions are usually predicated on what's in their best interests, if humanitarian reasons are cited it is likely only for pr purposes and to cajole a reluctant populace into supporting said action.

With this in mind I recall an American friend of mind in 2003 telling me that "our Government wouldn't lie to us, Saddam must be a threat to world peace". So i wonder had the real reason for the Iraq war been given would he and a majority of Americans have supported it?

and this is where the bias and a sort of collective amnesia comes in: Some people would rightly be cynical of Russia's stated reason for invading Chechnya, Afghanistan, and places like Georgia. Whereas i suspect they did not take the same approach in the run up to the Iraq war in 2003. They would, in the final analysis, be more inclined to ascribe altruistic motives to any action America undertakes.

Highly Salami · 05-05-2010 04:33PM

anymore wrote: »

Would you prefer the world was run from Washington, Moscow or Beijing ?
There arent anyother choices.

London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, New York?

Iran and the right to defend themselves

Comments