And in real world news... Iran halts oil exports to France, Britain.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, March 30, 2026 17:55
VIEWED: 5205
PAGE 3 of 6
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/15/425926/gas-prices-rising-d
emand-1997/
High gas prices, low demand, and lots and lots of speculation dollars.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Out of curiosity, when did "we're allies" start meaning "if you go to war we'll follow you in"? At one point did it mean "we get along reasonably well and we like trading with each other, and maybe if you go to war we'll come too, but not necessarily"?
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
At the point that we and other nations started signing mutual protection treaties. NATO is one such system. Germany, Japan, and Italy signed a similar agreement prior to WWII breaking out, which was why Germany declared war on the US immediately after we declared war on Japan - they were required by treaty to do so.
"Allies" often means you actually do have such signed agreements with each other. Otherwise you're really just "trading partners". We're trading partners with China; we're not allies with them. ;)
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And we're in a recession still. Wonder what a 'recovery' will do the the gas prices ?
Are we?
According to the textbook definition of a recession, are we still in one? I'd heard that the recession actually ended, according to economic definitions and theories, an 2010, possibly in late 2009.
Sure, things SEEM like they're still lagging behind, but heck, things SEEMED like the economy was "on fire" back in 2007 and 2008, while it was really burning down around our necks. I seem to remember you arguing that there was no recession then, although economists said that we had been in a recession for some time when the collapse came.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote Kwicko: "You make a tactical error by equating "allies" and "trust". We have allies, but most of them don't
trust us very much, and vice-versa. Iran has allies in Russia, China, and to an extent, India. Some have signed
mutual protection treaties with Iran, so any attack on Iran will trigger war with other nations. Some (like China)
have stated openly that while they may not have protective alliances with Iran, they will side with Iran in any
Iran-Israel or Iran-USA war.
Thank you for the clarification.
"Trust": bad choice of word.
I should have said, "Is there any government in the Middle East that doesn't fear a nuclear Iran?"
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan all get along pretty well with Iran. None are in the Arab League.
While Israel is the most obviously militant, perhaps most Arab countries are just as hostile toward Iran.
Since they know Iran far better than I do, I assume that they have good cause.
"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's kind of hard to know what Iran thinks since a lot of these proclamations come from different sources, even different semi-official government news agencies, and some of them seem completely contradictory or at odds with previously released ones (the UK was not included in the first group of 6 nations to have oil withheld, it was in this latest).
Over all of that is who's running the country? And are these proclamations for their people, for the region, for international consumption, or totally *Iraq Minister of Information* uncoordinated and just noise?
Or is it the MSM mislabeling these sources and putting them under "Iran?"
The latest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/iran-says-un-weapon
s-inspectors-wont-visit-nuclear-sites.html?_r=1&hp
"As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, IRAN was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened."
"The warning by the deputy head of its armed forces, quoted by a semi-official news agency, came as Tehran also appeared to place limits on a visit by a team of United Nations nuclear officials, saying the investigators would not go to nuclear facilities, despite earlier reports that its members had sought permission to inspect a military complex outside Tehran."
Seems a bit loose on the sourcing to call it "Iran." Nothing like a powder keg to sell papers.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Seems a bit loose on the sourcing to call it "Iran." Nothing like a powder keg to sell papers.
I blame Hearst for that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
It's kind of hard to know what Iran thinks since a lot of these proclamations come from different sources, even different semi-official government news agencies, and some of them seem completely contradictory or at odds with previously released ones (the UK was not included in the first group of 6 nations to have oil withheld, it was in this latest).
Over all of that is who's running the country? And are these proclamations for their people, for the region, for international consumption, or totally *Iraq Minister of Information* uncoordinated and just noise?
Or is it the MSM mislabeling these sources and putting them under "Iran?"
The latest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/iran-says-un-weapon
s-inspectors-wont-visit-nuclear-sites.html?_r=1&hp
"As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, IRAN was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened."
"The warning by the deputy head of its armed forces, quoted by a semi-official news agency, came as Tehran also appeared to place limits on a visit by a team of United Nations nuclear officials, saying the investigators would not go to nuclear facilities, despite earlier reports that its members had sought permission to inspect a military complex outside Tehran."
Seems a bit loose on the sourcing to call it "Iran." Nothing like a powder keg to sell papers.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
The key passage, I think is here:
Quote:
"The warning by the deputy head of its armed forces, quoted by a semi-official news agency...
Basically akin to some general going a bit rogue while drinking and talking with a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine. Some mid-level flunky's words being reported by a "semi-official" agency, and being taken as the word of the entire country and its government.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think any of 'em really do, Oon. Really. I think they understand that Iran is doing all this nuclear posturing to stave off an attack from the U.S. A nuclear U.S. of A. will always be a much greater threat to the region than Iran. It's clear as freakin' day over there. And Saddam Hussein did exactly the same thing. Government statements in Arab/Persian cultures are kinda like the trash talking we see in professional wrestling. Talk about comments not intended as factual statements!
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
"Trust": bad choice of word.
I should have said, "Is there any government in the Middle East that doesn't fear a nuclear Iran?"
And they are so not going to bomb Isreal. Because they know perfectly well how defenseless they would be against the rest of the world that would come in and trash their country like Aerosmith at the Four Seasons.
A nuclear Iran means one thing to the Middle East: an Iran the U.S. can't simply step on and grind into the dust. And, of course, it would disincline Isreal from doing anything rash as well.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:I don't think any of 'em really do, Oon. Really. I think they understand that Iran is doing all this nuclear posturing to stave off an attack from the U.S. A nuclear U.S. of A. will always be a much greater threat to the region than Iran. It's clear as freakin' day over there. And Saddam Hussein did exactly the same thing. Government statements in Arab/Persian cultures are kinda like the trash talking we see in professional wrestling. Talk about comments not intended as factual statements!
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
"Trust": bad choice of word.
I should have said, "Is there any government in the Middle East that doesn't fear a nuclear Iran?"
And they are so not going to bomb Isreal. Because they know perfectly well how defenseless they would be against the rest of the world that would come in and trash their country like Aerosmith at the Four Seasons.
A nuclear Iran means one thing to the Middle East: an Iran the U.S. can't simply step on and grind into the dust. And, of course, it would disincline Isreal from doing anything rash as well.
HKCavalier
I can't believe how many Westerners think they know what Iran will do. Got to be wishful thinking, right? I get that impulse, I'd love to think we can work this out like adults, because if that doesn't happen too many innocent people die. To me it rings as just as stubborn headed as our military thinking Iraq/everyone needs US Style democracy. A non-nuke Iran is one Israel doesn't want to bomb - that's the scenario that keeps the most people out of the worst trouble.
"There was no Holocaust and there are no Gays in Iran..." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Someone who thinks this backwards is someone you'll trust with nukes, is someone who's behavior you think you can safely predict?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wull,
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
"There was no Holocaust and there are no Gays in Iran..." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Someone who thinks this backwards is someone you'll trust with nukes, is someone who's behavior you think you can safely predict?
First of all, Pizmo, he ain't the guy in charge. President in Iran is more like a Propaganda Minister. Some people in the West think they can predict what Iran will do because they've done their research, read a little history, know people on the ground over there, etc. You keep harping on this point that we should all be just as ignorant as you say we are. Why? What makes you the authority on how ignorant the rest of us are?
And I find your thinking kinda authoritarian in its focus on the individual "leader." Individuals do not lead the modern nation state. That is a fiction. Decisions like nuking another country are never in the hands of one man. Yes, you may look at a chain of command and see so-and-so at the top and you can tell me that he has the key that will arm the warhead, bladdy-bladdy-blah, but still, in the nature of human beings, one guy is not responsible for the fate of millions. Ever. Not in reality.
And most of the time, "chain of command" is a fiction that keeps us from seeing the truth. Adolf Hitler didn't gas a single person by himself. Plenty of other folks were willing to do the heavy lifting there. The work of thousands goes into every nuclear warhead.
The fate of millions depends at least on the actions of, what, tens of thousands? PARTICULARLY when people start acting irrationally. Irrationality isn't randomness, it's usually highly patterned and predictable if you know what to look for. Y'know, an alcoholic in your face may seem like a great chaos monster, but if you look at alcoholics as a group, alcoholism as a syndrome, their behavior becomes quite mechanistic.
Some extremely mentally disturbed individuals have had control of nukes for decades now and our country is the only one to have ever used one in earnest. That is a fact. Do you think that's just luck? Random chance? I don't. I think it means something profound about human psychology, about human nature. I think it means there are limits.
Why didn't our country bomb Mecca ten years ago? Plenty of folk in and out of our government wanted that so very badly. I remember one of my best friends in the world yelling at me on the phone about it. You think the reason we didn't is because of our democratic system of government? Because we're so civilized? You think it was because George W. is more mentally stable than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Neither of these men live and work in a vacuum. And neither of them are particularly masters of even their own fates. Both are subject to the pressures of the people around them, their cultures, and of history and our human psychological nature.
I'm not without fear. I'm shocked at what our world has become in just 10 short years since 9/11/01. And sure, I could be wrong. I was wrong about the Iraq war. I thought it was all so much sabre rattling and brinksmanship. After all, the UN inspectors were nearly done and a lot of us already knew they would find nothing. And we knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I didn't think America would go to war with a country that had done nothing to us and posed no discernable threat. I was dead wrong. Nonetheless, even in retrospect, I wouldn't call my reasoning at the time "wishful thinking."
Sorry for rambling there, Pizmo. Just trying to give you a sense of why I think as I do. And maybe give you some things to ponder before you go thinking the worst of people, whether they be fellow forum members or foreign heads of state.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME