more lawless bankers. tis the season

12 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

@Maddus Mattus: The tactic is to remove the enemy's ability to wage war - sanctions (and Iran's removal from the international banking clearinghouse) work extremely well ...

I beg to differ. I cannot think of a single time in history where sanctions actually worked as intended. Sanctions affect the poor, not the elite, and make for perfect propaganda about evil foreigners starving the nation and its children. Not to mention that there's always a few "rogue" nations willing to make a grateful friend (and a profit).

Just think of Iraq and how much good those 13 years of sanctions did.

@Blue Ink: or Cuba,..

Well, I think the sanctions worked well, in fact. I don't know how any of us can support our opinions, though...

Sanctions foment unrest in the culture. It is putting enormous pressure on the Iranian government. They could "Arab Spring" anytime, though be clear that Iranians are not Arabs!

Sanctions work better than invasion. Go read a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Because Iran is currently not doing anything remotely with nuclear weapons technology?

Oh wait,.. they are!

And they can't "Arab Spring" because they already have Muslim leadership.

I feel like you are only considering two options and both options require you to use force. My third option requires no force and we stand to make profit.

When they rise out of the shitty situation they are in now, maybe they will open up to us. Keeping them poor and miserable, pointing the finger at the west for blame, isn't helping the situation at all.

We need to stop telling other countries what to do, it's having adverse affects on us.

@Maddus Mattus: Iran is not suffering, not without the sanctions. They are oppressed by Religion, imho. They are not miserable and not poor.

I see "Arab Spring" as regime change, not anything to do with Muslim leadership. Who's right?

Iran has promised (officially) to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Israel to destroy it.

With luck, Iran will implode and clean up its own mess, starting with a secular elected government.

25 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I feel like you are only considering two options and both options require you to use force. My third option requires no force and we stand to make profit.

Just out of interest, in your option do you keep trading with Iran after they put a 20-mile crater in Tel Aviv, or just up until then?

@JohnAskew: well,.. Look at where the "Arab Spring" has hit and look at the outcome,.. It's not like they are working democracies right now,.. They went from dictatorships to religious controlled governments. I'm not even sure the people there want a democracy.

And if they are not poor and not miserable, what good did those sanctions do? Isn't it supposed to make them poor and miserable, forcing them to change their way?

I promise to drive 200 mph on the way back to home, should I be banned from driving? It's all talk, we're buying into their game.

I'm not convinced Iran will ever implode, they have been making amuck in the middle east for as long as I can remember.

@evildictaitor: Good question, tricky one,..

I would have to say yes to that.

I don't think it's wise to condone violence now, to prevent the possibility of violence in the future. The only prudent course is a reactionary one. Get the armies ready, but never deal the first blow.

Iran is an isolated country around nuclear powers. They can't launch any without being wiped from the map. It's a game of bluff poker and currently they are winning the bluff.

@Maddus Mattus:

Hmmmmmm............. You are telling me to make friend with who I hate because he is a useful tool and I am also a useful tool? And you are telling me to ignore all the obvious reactions from my existing friends and families who hated him? For example, shaking hands with a devil? Devil is more appealing IMO.

56 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

The only prudent course is a reactionary one.

Consider you are a soldier in Afghanistan.

A man runs up to your convoy in Afghanistan. It isn't clear from a distance whether he has a bomb strapped to their chest - but you're pretty sure he does and but he is shouting "God is great" as running towards you. He doesn't speak English and doesn't stop when you shout "stop" to him.

In your opinion, should you open fire to kill him? Getting it wrong could kill you and your six friends in the van.

Now change some of the words.

Consider you are the Prime Minister of Israel.

Your intelligence services brief you on clear and imminent threat that a man in the middle east is building a nuclear weapon. It isn't clear from a distance when the bomb will be ready, or if it will be used preemptively - but you're pretty sure he intends to. He routinely shouts "God is great" and is pushing huge resources into his nuclear programme. He doesn't stop when you shout "stop" to him.

In your opinion should you intervene to stop him? Getting it wrong could kill 200,000 of your citizens.

Not everyone responds to causality. A suicide bomber is not afraid of reprisals. Neither is Ahmadinejad.

@evildictaitor: If it was up to me, we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan.

And yes, I would probably shoot him on sight. IF I was a soldier in Afghanistan, in a war situation.

Where your comparison is faulty, IMO, is that there have been experiences with suicide bombers. Our experience has taught us to be careful with people yelling 'God is great' in large crowds. There are no similar experiences with nuclear warfare.

If history teaches us anything, it is that the USA doesn't seem to be afraid to either; a. make the threat of nuclear warfare and b. make nuclear warfare. So, until then, I suggest a more reactionary course of action.

You'd think that Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught the Americans their lesson by now, but they seem to be hell bent on playing the world's police. Don't get me wrong, I owe them my liberty, but we've asked to be rescued from the Germans (azi-n is a bad word?), the east did no such thing. 

And if you say intelligence agencies, are those the same that 'found' the nuclear weapons in Iraq?

@magicalclick: You probably are already. There are millions of people involved in making your daily life happen, some of them may hate your very guts. But they are always willing to trade, because it serves their interests as well as yours.

Arguing with maddus is pointless.  His initial response to a story that involved banks taking steps that are illegal in both countries is "well, regulations are the problem".  How do you argue intelligently with that.

You don't.

@Maddus Mattus:

So your are telling me to embrace devil and continue to do business with him, because I probably already doing it? 

And are you telling me USA businesses should have do more business with Germany during WWII because British had no right to interfere free market between USA and Germany?

@ScanIAm: Reducing all political debate into defense of favored ideologies is easier than trying to fold in someone else's favored ideology.

Did you tease the dog chained to the tree? Shame on you... Chains break, maybe, ...probably not.

3 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

Well, I think the sanctions worked well, in fact. I don't know how any of us can support our opinions, though...

Sanctions foment unrest in the culture. It is putting enormous pressure on the Iranian government. They could "Arab Spring" anytime, though be clear that Iranians are not Arabs!

Sanctions work better than invasion. Go read a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Sanctions do work in countries where civil liberties are not completely suppressed, where the monopoly of law enforcement, military power and information is not absolute. There you can hope for civil unrest and rioting, otherwise you obtain nothing but rallying with the leader and resentment and hatred towards those who are enforcing the sanctions. There are countless examples in modern history, ranging from Italy in the 30's to Iraq in the 90's, passing through Rhodesia, Libya (in the 90's), Serbia, take your pick.

Back to the Iraq example, thirteen years of sanctions deeply affected the population as testified by FAO, UNICEF and pretty much any NGO who was allowed to visit the country. And yet, Saddam kept his place until overturned (surprise) by an invasion.

Incidentally, I've read that book, and quite a few others, during my military training. It's an amazing read, albeit utterly out of date. At any rate, I honestly didn't remember it advocates that sanctions work better than invasion, are you sure about your quote?

7 minutes ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

Sanctions do work in countries where civil liberties are not completely suppressed, where the monopoly of law enforcement, military power and information is not absolute. There you can hope for civil unrest and rioting, otherwise you obtain nothing but rallying with the leader and resentment and hatred towards those who are enforcing the sanctions. There are countless examples in modern history, ranging from Italy in the 30's to Iraq in the 90's, passing through Rhodesia, Libya (in the 90's), Serbia, take your pick.

Back to the Iraq example, thirteen years of sanctions deeply affected the population as testified by FAO, UNICEF and pretty much any NGO who was allowed to visit the country. And yet, Saddam kept his place until overturned (surprise) by an invasion.

Incidentally, I've read that book, and quite a few others, during my military training. It's an amazing read, albeit utterly out of date. At any rate, I honestly didn't remember it advocates that sanctions work better than invasion, are you sure about your quote?

The wealthy class is who is usually first to turn on the sanctioned government, not the poor.  The wealthy are who change things, and they will always change things to suit themselves. Maybe the poor riot, hopefully they don't starve - international humanitarian aide (e.g. dropping bags of rice) is pretty savvy these days... Plus there is always the assertion that a sanctioned government whose people are suffering is a government that requires change - the whole point of sanctions. 

Sanctions make change more suitable for the decision-makers (Oligarchy) than doing nothing. Sanctions work or they would not be used. Of course the poor suffer first and most, that's always the case in peace or war, right or wrong.

I would speculate that the oligarchy (Sunnis) of Saddam's era were not 'sanctioned' enough to confront him during those 13 years.

(It was incorrect for the USA to leave Iraq during the first invasion 20 years ago at the UN's behest. The Bush family had to regain the Presidency to right that wrong. They had death threats from the Shiites that were abandoned in the South of Iraq because WE left them to Saddam. Aweful 13 years of suffering and murdering. I don't wonder why Bush Jr. lied in order to attack Saddam, its obvious to me. Back to topic...)

Know that I have not been to Iraq and cannot speak from first hand experience.

Art of War states that removing an enemies capability to wage war is plan #1, and %100 more effective than the always ill-fated occupation of enemy territory. It's just about the first thing stated in the book; (we call it passive aggression these days).

Did you go to Iraq during the invasions?

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

And if you say intelligence agencies, are those the same that 'found' the nuclear weapons in Iraq?

The intelligence agencies found no such thing. The German equivilent of the CIA had one source, and the Whitehouse turned that into a reason to invade.

And even the Whitehouse only said chemical weapons (which Saddam had, in fact, used against the Kurds in the first gulf war). Nobody ever suggested Iraq had nuclear weapons.

@JohnAskew:

The thing that gets me about the banking industry, is when I look at them I find it very hard to see how they contribute much of anything of substence. Farmers produce raw food, cooks process the food, truck drivers transport food and other stuff. Teachers teach people new skills, engineers engineer new technology and infrastructure, scientists advance the state of science, doctors and nurses heal people or keep them healthy. Mechanics fix cars. It's all pretty obvious value. Sorry if I missed someone's occupation.

But I can't really put my finger on what bankers are doing for us, especially nothing worthy of the amount of money they seem to produce for themselves (which seems to be higher than all the above quoted occupations in general). Can we replace them with a small shell script and be done with this whole "financial industry" already? That would be a worthy goal.