Skirting sanctions ain't good.
|
Skirting sanctions ain't good.
There appears to be only one nation on Earth who believes sanctions are an effective weapon. They are indeed a blunt instrument with consequences. You may remember that sanctions are what forced Japan into WWII. Admittedly their actions could not be permitted to continue but direct confrontation may have led to a better outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Now the consequence of sanctions are playing out in the Gulf and oddly it is the UK that is on the front line. This is what comes of toadying to the US, you get yourself into a fight you haven't prepared for. The UK ceased to be a force east of Suez 70 years ago and the Iranians recognise this. The UK should have left the US Mediterranian Fleet to intercept that tanker because the US has no intention of protecting any vessel other than its own. Anyway this argument drones on
First we interfere too much, and then not enough. And so it goes.Quote:
The UK should have left the US Mediterranian Fleet to intercept that tanker because the US has no intention of protecting any vessel other than its own.
I'll go with that thought, you like the average bully, loud, in your face and when confronted you go to waterQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're welcome for saving your rear ends during WW 2.Quote:
I'll go with that thought, you like the average bully, loud, in your face and when confronted you go to water
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It is my fond hope that the U.S. will say to the rest of the largely defenseless world, "Take care of your oil shipping lanes yourself. We're energy independent. Not our problem." A nuclear armed Iran would be our problem, but we don't need that oil.
Brit commandos are more than capable of retaking the vessels back . The question is ;has the civilized world stopped taking on the fight against piracy ?
If the choice is sanctions or allowing the 12ers to develop nukes then I'll attempt sanctions 1st . The only other option after that is war .
Just the latest escalation in a messy affair between entitled big mouths and thugs trying to rule the world. Pick a side, you lose. I wish it were as simple as just piracy.
What a warped distorted view of the history . The Japanese had imperial expansion on their mind when they put the chain of events into place. Japan's eyes were 1st on resource rich Siberia They had defeated Russia handily in 1905 in Manchuria .But Siberia was the prize. .They needed the resources because their expansion into China was proving to be more difficult that expected .In the summer of 1939 they attacked Russia on the Mongolia frontier .Quote:
You may remember that sanctions are what forced Japan into WWII. Admittedly their actions could not be permitted to continue but direct confrontation may have led to a better outcome.
In the climactic battle, August 20-31, 1939, the Japanese were crushed in a tank battle atKhalkhyn Gol by Soviet GeneralGeorgy Zhukov (who was also responsible for defeating the German invaders of Russia making him the greatest General in WWII). Once the Japanese were denied Siberia they had no choice but the look for resouces along the Pacific rim .The sanctions imposed on Japan were designed to prevent them the ability to get the resources to fuel their imperial expansion. They did not provoke war . They were designed to deny the Japanese the ability to continue war .
The same can be said of sanctions against Iran. Their pursuit of nukes is designed to make their ambitions for regional hegemony a reality .
The emperor gave Iran billions which they used to fund terrorism support their nuke and ballistic missile programs and fordomestic crackdown,. The apologists say it was their money. Ridiculous after 40 years of crimes against humanity, no one with a backbone or a conscience would give them a penny.
Well stated. It was possibly the dumbest move made by the Obama administration and completely inexcusable.Quote:
The apologists say it was their money. Ridiculous after 40 years of crimes against humanity, no one with a backbone or a conscience would give them a penny.
That warped idea of history never gets old, does it? Japan had no intention of invading Australia. They had established their objectives and achieved them. Their problem was they lacked the resources to hold them. They knew your military strength was too great, even in 1941, they hoped to get you to negotiate, instead they infuriated you and what followed was a Pacific wide war which you happened to fight in our back yard to keep MacArthur safeQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We don't buy oil from the middle east, certainly not Iran, so all of that is a side show, and you keep selling tickets to the conflicts you create
Tom, giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing, just like they gave you nothing by signing the treaty. Trump recognised this, but disowning an international treaty is not the way to negotiate, even though it seems to be the only play Trump makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Forcing a soveriegn nation into poverty isn't the way to do it, it didn't work on Iraq
and you know why the UN oil for food program failed ? Because our "partners" like Australia violated the terms . (Clete knows what I am referencing . Everyone else look up the AWB scandal) . Yeah if sanction programs are routinely violated by coalition partners : (especially by scum like UNQuote:
it didn't work on Iraq
Secretary-General Annan,)they are more likely going to fail. When the world stood in solidarity with a different sanction program , South Africans realized they had no choice but the give up their nuke program .
"their funds" was not available for them to use to fund their terror programs until the emperor gave them to the 12ers for hostage ransom . Those funds didn't belong to the 12ers .They belong to the people of Iran .They belong to the victims of the 12ers international crimes .Quote:
giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing,
That's such a poor excuse. It's on the level of a parent giving their son his inheritance knowing full well he is a known terrorist and will use it to kill people. When we returned that money to Iran, we knew full well they were not simply going to use it to build schools.Quote:
giving Iran their own funds was giving them nothing,
all you are proving is there has been more than one dill in the White HouseQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Are you still wrankling over being out maneuvered in that wheat deal. What's a little bribery in an arab country? And a South African bomb, be serious, Dem Kaffirs can barely feed demselves. mon What a boorQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You have to get over Iran out maneuvering you in Iraq it is a matter of religion. What part of you ain't Shiite Muslim do you not understand?
I think it demonstrated your contention was a poor one.Quote:
all you are proving is there has been more than one dill in the White House
Really, what is your evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You want evidence that giving money, for any reason (or pretense) to a country committed to violence and terrorism is a bad idea? Really??
Cut out the holier than thou, the US does it all the time. The US supported Saddam and he fell out of favour over Kuwait, that's what happens when you support a dictator because he is the enemy of your enemy. Obama was just a long line of expedience. I think we liked you better when you weren't imposing Pax Americana and don't do as I do, do as I say doesn't really cut it, the rest of us have a part to play in this world and as one of our Prime Ministers said, I did it my wayQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And you need to cut out the distractions. You know full well the topic was the particular instance of giving monies to Iran with them in the midst of malicious pursuits. The other instances you note are worth discussing, but they are not the present discussion. You try to make the Iranian deal out to be merely returning to them that which was theirs. True enough, but to give them so much as penny in the present circumstance was unwise in the extreme.Quote:
Cut out the holier than thou, the US does it all the time.
As maybe, but Obama did a number of unwise things including backing ISIS so let us not talk loudly about backing terrorists, it is an excuse and as I said holier than thou. What are the present circumstances. Is it Hamas, or Hezbollah that has your nose out of joint or is it that Iran helped put down ISIS or put down the american inspired insurrection in Syria. I think Trump and others fly a flag of convenience particularly in the middle east.Quote:
to give them so much as penny in the present circumstance was unwise in the extreme.
Let us see now GWB talked of an axis of evil, Iran, North Korea and someone else who escapes me for the moment, but your president is selective, he is pals with one regime and dispises the other. It is marvelous the influence Israel has on US policy
The present circumstances is that the 12ers regime in Tehran has been at war with the western world since 1979. Hamas and Hezbollah are foot soldiers for their regime . Asking that question is like asking which corp of an army you are at war with .Quote:
What are the present circumstances.Is it Hamas, or Hezbollah
And I have been consistent .They will continue to wage war against us until we submit ;or put them down.Quote:
I think Trump and others fly a flag of convenience particularly in the middle east.
Are you leaving out how the 12ers retook Iran after being exiled for years under the puppet shah who allowed western interest to rape pillage and plunder Iranian resources? Or the fact that Syria is the proxy for Vlad, and Iraq may as well be a state of Iran, which is warring with the dufus buddy the Saudi's for regional dominance? That makes the dufus the sheriff with as many hood rats on his side as there are he is trying to bully into compliance. You think the Saudi's and Vlad ain't thicker than thieves?
Maybe you should take a look at the map again. More enemies than friends. Put X on the ones we have raped pillaged and plundered before and you get a better picture.
The war you speak is waged in their land not ours. Check that map again.Quote:
And I have been consistent .They will continue to wage war against us until we submit ;or put them down.
You fellows have no sense of History, it is because you have only been around a couple of centuries. The people of Persia (Iran) ruled over these contested lands long ago and raised huge armies to challenge the puny states of Europe. They have not forgotten this even though they eventually lost. They are not cowed by your threats or your puny forces. They have no sense of what an air war might be, they are waging war out of small boats. The Muslims are not going to go away because you say so, I say step back and let the Saudi and Iran settle this themselves in the time honoured way and don't be their proxyQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Even Vlad has made it no secret he wants to return to the Russian gory days of conquest and domination. You put your finger on the problem though Clete, sending armies somewhere to enforce domination, when you already economically dominate, and cripple, and are crushing your stated opponents, or in our case our allies opponents.
Everybody knows we don't do it for nothing as we have strong economic reasons like raping, pillaging, and plundering foreign resources for profit. Hey that's what capitalist do!
I know for a fact that the narrative about the Shah is a leftist lie . The country was modernizing under the Shah and the people were living a lot freer lives then they have had since .Everything they took for granted under the shah they have to do in secret today . There was no plunder .
What you call plunder was western companies investing money to develop Iran's resources ;building nationwide telecommunications infrastructures ;proper sewage systems .When I was there even the more affluent neighborhoods had open sewage running down the curbs . (I was there in 1976 and 1977 2 years before the revolution and the revolution was not perceptible . ) The exact opposite of plunder was happening . The Shah nationalized the energy sector from international interest .The Shah’s health corps eradicated malaria in the countryside, He modernized Iran’s rail infrastructure.
Under the Shah, the middle class constituted a majority of Iran’s population. Today Iranians are mainly lower income people.It was the Shah's dream to deliver a modern country with a sustainable economic foundation and a humane and democratic social system along with individual freedoms, social justice, and economic democracy .Bread was cheaper, foreign currency was cheaper, food items were cheaper and often subsidized for the poor .Iran did become one of the Middle East’s most advanced and successful countries.Look on the web The Iranian women dressed in skirts and jeans , They did not have to cover their head and faces . They were a freer people.Women gained the vote and the right to divorce .Yes Khomeini was exiled . What did his revolution bring ? a return to 14th century . When I was there the women did not have to fear persecution from the government . Yes there were still some back country mores in place in the villages . But the country was moving away from that .
Yes the shah was hardline on dissidents and the crack downs could be brutal . The people who did revolt were looking for more democracy and more freedom . The 12ers returned from exile and hijacked the revolution.
Same dynamic all over, western powers come in and things get better business wise, but not to everybody, then we find out the leader and his buddies got rich and workers didn't and the poor got poorer. That's what happens in Africa, the middle east, and even in India, and South and Central America. Not saying the new leaders are any better, many are corrupt or just RWL's (Right Wing Loonies) but authoritarian leaders all the same like Vlad, often sectarian like Saad, but that's the nature of 3rd world strongmen. I'll use your word...brutal, and why capitalist look the other way knowing full well that it goes on escapes me.
You got any other places with vast resources you want to transform in your image?
Marxist tropes are so boring .
So are capitalists tropes. Like the great economy with half of them in poverty.
Yes Tal you are right the economy is not great, it still rides on the backs of the poor, but then that is what capitalist imperialists do
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Then how about this ---------
From AOC - What Is Called The "Extreme Left-wing Agenda"https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...HcStkl_x96.jpg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Jul 21
Reminder of what people are calling the “radical, extreme-left agenda”:
Medicare for All
A Living Wage & Labor Rights
K-16 schooling, aka Public Colleges
100% Renewable Energy
Fixing the pipes in Flint
Not Hurting Immigrants
Holding Wall Street Accountable
(ed. by Athos) Some of these are not clearly defined, but it's a start.
One can only wonder what the economy would have to do to be considered great. Lowest unemployment figures in decades, positive GDP growth, and rising wages. Yeah, that sure is pitiful.Quote:
Yes Tal you are right the economy is not great, it still rides on the backs of the poor, but then that is what capitalist imperialists do
Now there is just that little detail of how to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars needed to do that, bearing in mind that we cannot even come close to paying for what we have now, and there is no rate of taxation feasible whereby it can be done. So how will we pay for all this extra???Quote:
Medicare for All
A Living Wage & Labor Rights
K-16 schooling, aka Public Colleges
100% Renewable Energy
Fixing the pipes in Flint
Not Hurting Immigrants
Holding Wall Street Accountable
Why isn't the city of Flint responsible for fixing their own pipes, or at the very least the state of Michigan?
Why wouldn't "labor rights" include the right of a worker to negotiate his/her own wage rate, even if it is less than what liberals consider optimum, if that is what he/she is willing to work for?
The socialist agenda in now on open display.
And half the population is poor and in some regions more than that, and the best economy in the world the minorities still have twice as high unemployment, least likely to attain the simple things like a house and the very last to have wage gains. Nice spin from the dominant culture and dufus sycophants. It's just more BS to use to elevate the dufus higher than he deserves while distracting us from the true picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The obvious question is with such a great economy and rising wages has the party in power not done anything to cut the debt but have taken action to grow it and pocket it. Of course you expose your own ignorance of tax law and debt so cannot see how to reduce it except to stop spending which obviously ain't going to happen. Nor is a slight tax raise on rich guys who made the debt happen an option. Paying for the debt takes a longer view than just one year as you want, but here's an idea, Clinton balanced the budget on the back of military spending, and Reagan raised taxes when he needed funding. Hmm where is the lesson you should have learned but didn't?Quote:
Now there is just that little detail of how to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars needed to do that, bearing in mind that we cannot even come close to paying for what we have now, and there is no rate of taxation feasible whereby it can be done. So how will we pay for all this extra???
They don't have the money for infrastructure projects. Repubs took over and stole it.Quote:
Why isn't the city of Flint responsible for fixing their own pipes, or at the very least the state of Michigan?
Now you sound loony since you ignore the last few decades of union rights and gains destroyed by Big Biz and conservative capitalist that worship the right to have power over the workers. Voluntary slavery, since I doubt the boss will negotiate YOUR salary when he can hire a grog off the street who would love your job.Quote:
Why wouldn't "labor rights" include the right of a worker to negotiate his/her own wage rate, even if it is less than what liberals consider optimum, if that is what he/she is willing to work for?
That's what repub dufus sycophants are saying so that makes you one too!Quote:
The socialist agenda in now on open display.
That is flatly, totally, 100% untrue by a mile and a half.Quote:
And half the population is poor and in some regions more than that,
And have a 70% out of wedlock birth rate that is responsible for more negatives than we can keep track of. It is also the one great thing black America could easily fix that you don't like to talk about.Quote:
and the best economy in the world the minorities still have twice as high unemployment, least likely to attain the simple things like a house and the very last to have wage gains.
Completely correct. Of course, it was also true of Obama.Quote:
The obvious question is with such a great economy and rising wages has the party in power not done anything to cut the debt but have taken action to grow it and pocket it.
.Quote:
Of course you expose your own ignorance of tax law and debt so cannot see how to reduce it except to stop spending which obviously ain't going to happen. Nor is a slight tax raise on rich guys who made the debt happen an option
OK. Let's hear your plan. How do we raise an extra tril in tax revenue? Be specific.
Only in this fantasy world in which you live have I ever suggested paying off the debt in one year. Where in the world do you get these crazy ideas?Quote:
Paying for the debt takes a longer view than just one year as you want, but here's an idea, Clinton balanced the budget on the back of military spending, and Reagan raised taxes when he needed funding. Hmm where is the lesson you should have learned but didn't?
I give Clinton and the republican Congress credit for three budgets with surpluses. Reagan never had a balanced budget. On the whole he lowered taxes, especially in 81 which started an enormous economic revival. Turns out you are the one who needs to learn some lessons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Speaking about learning lessons - Reagan was a serial tax raiser - 11 times - and almost tripled the federal deficit. He backed away from his early tax cut when the result was a disaster.
Don't use words of which you don't know the meaning of - like socialism.
You're opposed to a living wage? (It's already being done as states raise to $15/hour). Fixing Flint's water? Renewable energy? Etc.
Instead of complaining before these ideas are presented, why not wait until the conversation starts and contribute ideas as to how they can be done. Isn't that what you're supporting? The pols working together?
Think again. Learn.Quote:
Speaking about learning lessons - Reagan was a serial tax raiser - 11 times - and almost tripled the federal deficit. He backed away from his early tax cut when the result was a disaster.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/lega...%20revenue.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts
This link includes this: "The first tax cut (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) among other things, cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 70% to 50% and the lowest from 14% to 11% and decreased the highest Capital Gains Tax rate from 28% to 20%. [1]
The second tax cut (The Tax Reform Act of 1986) among other things, cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 50% to 38.5% but decreasing to 28% in the following years [2] and increased the highest Capital Gains Tax rate to 28% from 20%."
So the general trend was extensive tax cuts. Tax rates went down while revenue went up, but spending went up even faster with the result that deficits grew.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/defau...axcuts2002.jpg
You don't have the slightest idea what my understanding of "socialism" is.Quote:
Don't use words of which you don't know the meaning of - like socialism.
I'm opposed to you imposing your wage ideas upon others. Your idea will basically do away with a lot of lower income jobs, teen-age employment, and entry level positions. Worst of all, it does away with a person's right to work for whatever wage they find acceptable.Quote:
You're opposed to a living wage? (It's already being done as states raise to $15/hour). Fixing Flint's water? Renewable energy? Etc.
I'm all for Flint fixing Flint's problems, or Michigan if they can talk them into it. I have no idea why fed taxpayers should have to pay for that other than to buy votes for democrat candidates.
I'm all for any renewable energy that is economically and practically feasible. Unfortunately, other than hydro and possibly geo-thermal, which are both very limited, there are none. And your idea was to go 100% renewable, which raises the question of what we do at night when the wind is not blowing. Got an answer for that???
Uhm...I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but you started the conversation in your post above. If you don't want your democrat ideas to be discussed, then don't bring them up.Quote:
Instead of complaining before these ideas are presented, why not wait until the conversation starts and contribute ideas as to how they can be done. Isn't that what you're supporting? The pols working together?
You want me to contribute my thoughts on how to do these loony ideas? Easy. Don't do them other than, possibly, the last two. I'm all for humane treatment of illegals, but I think we are pretty much at that point now. But if not, then fine, let's make it better. And I'm not sure how Wall Street needs reforming, but I'm open to hearing your ideas on it.
We know now your idea of working together is only so much noise.
It can't start from the proposal of, "Let's talk about how to implement my ideas."
Repubs always cut taxes mainly because they benefit the rich which is supply side economics, or trickle down economics. It never works for main streeters, and has always created debts and left control of the money flow in the hands of the rich, resulting in deficits for taxpayers and many people either in abject poverty, or working poor. A capitalist with wealth and investments embraces this economic model, while passing the risks and downsides to US the ordinary American consumer. Why do you think that they are trying to undermine the Consumer Protection Agency? Why do they insist on keeping wages really low and leverage job creation to take from YOUR local tax base?
So while you worry about teen ager jobs, the 24 year old just married has to take those jobs to feed a family. Government alone cannot solve the wage/wealth disparity, it takes a wholesale restructuring of the profit before people business model, embraced and abetted by the right. Love to see your evidence to the contrary that half of America lives below the poverty line, and most are working poor.
That would blow your great economy BS out of the water so when you disagree, how about the data and some thoughtful ACCURATE analysis for a change. Just saying it's so because you say so doesn't cut it or keep those vast majority of Walmart works off the public dole. LOL, I can't believe you think full time workers on welfare is no big deal.
To the subject of this thread though the tensions and actions in the gulf between Iran and the dufus is steadily escalating and bringing the Europeans of their fence.
Where was your data? I'd especially like to see your data (not emotional rhetoric) demonstrating this is not a great economy. If Obama had done this, you'd be singing his praises. We ought to thank God every day to have an economy like this.Quote:
That would blow your great economy BS out of the water so when you disagree, how about the data and some thoughtful ACCURATE analysis for a change.
Don't get all steamed up. You want data? About 2% of workers earn minimum wage. Most people who earn minimum wage are in entry level jobs or working part-time such as teens looking for work. The best thing for wages is low unemployment which causes competition for good employees and makes it much easier for good workers to get paid more.Quote:
So while you worry about teen ager jobs, the 24 year old just married has to take those jobs to feed a family. Government alone cannot solve the wage/wealth disparity, it takes a wholesale restructuring of the profit before people business model, embraced and abetted by the right.
And yeah, unlike you I am concerned about the teenager who would like to work a part time job and learn some job skills. That was me fifty years ago and it was a great experience for me. It just amazes me how you libs can so casually talk about, "while you worry about teen ager jobs." It makes me wonder what world you are living in. Where I live, teens need those jobs.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:56 PM. |