Imposition - A discussion on International Politics

[DeletedUser]

http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Govt-confident-of-solution-to-oil-ban-20120517

the only issue i am concerned of is that you should let us make our own foreign policy and not superimpose yours on us. but hey guess what country will not be hit by terrorist attacks

as to beggars our biggest trade partner is germany followed by china. the point i was trying to make is that these decisions is not that much better than what Bush did. Simply because they increase hatred of the us.a. which probably will lead to another attack soon. I mean clearly no attempt was made to engage in a conversation with the african union probably because in the minds of the united states of israel (as some jokingly refer to you guys) "that don't concern the african union" or some such narrow way of thinking.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/145253865.html

Now doesnt that sound familiar. So they are working on weapons of mass destruction which will probably require an invasion of them in the future. In which case it will be I guess :

they didnt support ghaddafi what they said was that a peaceful transition must be arranged involving all parties and a election. I think that is called democracy..the last time i checked. just allowing militant organizations to take over countries because their ideology is in your opinion right is not a good option also.

and didnt the us support taliban , osama bin ladin and saddam hussain in the past

other article to disprove it has anything to do with the u.n. as hellstromm wrongly claims in his innocence.

http://www.fin24.com/Economy/SA-pressured-to-cease-Iran-oil-imports-20120513

Wow... seriously wrong.

Let me clarify what sanctions are, at least in reference to the statements you made above. It is essentially a refusal to do business with any country that does business with a specific country or countries. In this particular case, it's the U.S. stating that any nation or business doing business with Iran will not be allowed to do business with any U.S. bank. As your third article clearly indicates, "all oil transactions with Iran that pass through the US financial system will be blocked." There is an effort by the U.S. to get more countries to impose same or similar sanctions, thus making it unpalatable to do business with Iran, but they're not telling anyone they cannot buy from Iran. Instead, they're making a hard choice --- do business with Iran or with the U.S., but not both. And getting others on board to impose similar sanctions will result in a --- do business with Iran or the conglomerate of U.S., France, Germany, U.K., Japan, etc etc., but not both.

As to this speculation that the U.S. will enter into an attack on Iran, it's always possible, but it's far more likely that Israel will fire some missiles and destroy Iran's facilities, as they did in the past, and the world will condemn the act but nothing other than that will occur, and people will go on their merry way. It is exceedingly unlikely that Obama will enter into any war without ample provocation. He doesn't follow the neo-con (Bush Jr., Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc) philosophy of imposition through force of arms with the intent of global domination. As it is, people only voted Bush Jr. in twice because they thought he was attacking the groups/countries that were responsible for 9/11. Had they known the neo-con agenda, they would have thought twice about backing the Bush administration's criminal acts.

Also, the specifics of Iraq are quite different from Iran, in that Iraq invaded Kuwait (which itself is a contested land, on a different issue altogether), and the U.S. obtained the international green light to end Iraq's hostilities, which they did. However, the cease fire was obtained through an agreement. Iraq's government, under Hussein, agreed to abide by certain rules including a no fly zone for the south and cooperation with the U.N. regarding inspections. Because Iraq did not cooperate with the U.N., the U.S. was within their rights to end the 1992' ceasefire and finish what they started. I'm not saying it was right, just that they were within their rights.

I am not going to further prognosticate on the Iran issue, as there are many potential outcomes, including Iran eventually cooperating with the U.N.. The notion of nations imposing their will on others is as old as history itself. The difference now is that it is done through diplomacy and economic sanctions, a sort of gentleman's approach to nations acting in their best interests.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Lets be honest for once. telling us you must make a choice us or the iran is nothing but bullying. It is also apparent that private institutions South African Banks as well as all US companies that wishes to transact with south africa will be prejudiced because of actions that is essentially out of their control.

But lets focus on the Oil transaction first. ( I am currently busy developing a commercial program that i want to sell online, selling off many of my secondhand music (about 160 cds), establishing a online business and lastly creating a bookcase program so that i can work after hours. So will not research this further as I have no time.)

Firstly lets look at the facts these two articles present:
1. Iran is the cheapest fuel supplier at about $100 per barrel. So firstly switching to other countries will have a negative financial impact for all south africans. We are almost at $2 per liter of fuel this may drive us into that price range.
2. Secondly the private companies that buy fuel from Iran have refineries specifically geared for Iranian fuel. As stated they will have to re-engineer their refinery to accept other fuel because of the unique chemical composition of Iranian oil. Dont ask me how it work. This cost will have to re-cooperated somewhere and most likely by raising fuel prices. However if one company sells Iranian oil and the second one doesnt we must if the prices is raised pay for the company with no Iranian oil the same higher price as there is one single price throughout South Africa. It is in fact illegal to sell fuel at a lower price.
3. Because the actual oil price is but one part in the calculation of petrol and diesel. You cannot simply raise the price to accommodate say a 50 c increase in price. As its a percentage if you raise it anywhere , you raise it throughout so for example the road accident fund levy must be raised as well.
4. There is no facts that supports that Iran is busy on a nuclear program. Or no facts presented by the articles anyway. Feel free to enlighten us.
5. South Africa do not provide Iran with uranium or other stuff to build their nuclear bombs. The money goes from a South African Fuel company to a Iranian Oil Company. So in my opinion the sanctions punish civilian companies and will not stop Iran's Nuclear program if they have one. Or do you really think they cant just pump it to another Oil producer and work out a deal with them. So in the long run the only effect will be detrimental fuel prices to the whole of South Africa one of the U.S.A 's biggest trade partners.
6. Although the government is complying the petroleum Organisations said its a impossibility.
7. South Africa is in no way an enemy of the U.S.A.

So in my opinion US foreign policy is forced on other nations. Furthermore it is not a well thought out bill and the implementation is even more idiotic as it almost the Mao Tse Tsung (not certain of the name)statement of killing a couple of bad fish by poisoning the whole river.

Also in my opinion with the current economic conditions making trade more difficult and expensive and placing restrictions on oil supply just re-emphasis that Barack Obama feels absolutely nothing for the US economy or world economy and that keeping that smo in charge for another 4 years will be disastrous.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ahmedinejad heads a vile regime that happily oppresses and murders its own people. It also refuses to abide by IAEA monitoring to safeguard against nuclear proliferation.
So why would any country have relations with Iran? Ah yes, it has some cheap oil.
So please, Jakkals, stop moralising - recognise that there are only financial interests here and not ethical ones. The US wants to keep money out of Iran, other states want to buy their oil. Yes, there's a conflict of interests, but there's no moral high ground here. When you understand that, everything becomes a lot simpler.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lets be honest for once. telling us you must make a choice us or the iran is nothing but bullying.

No, it's not bullying, it's a choice. You can choose to do business at an establishment, or not. If that establishment says, we won't serve you because you shop at the other store, that's that establishment's prerogative and it puts the choice into the hands of the consumer as to whether to do business with one establishment or another.

You want honesty? Being denied access to someone's backyard is not bullying. Being denied access to a foreign nation's banks is not bullying. Your example, South Africa's petroleum companies, have a choice, and at present their choice is to do business with Iran. The government of South Africa may decide that the South African-based petroleum corporations need to stop purchasing from Iran because it hurts all their other industries, and they would be right in doing so, because the selfishness of the South African-based petroleum corporations are hunting for higher profit margins for their own companies, at the expense of South Africa as a whole. Business is business, and when it comes to corporations making choices, those choices are based on profit, not morality, which is precisely the problem.

So, here we have the United States saying, "yo, government of South Africa, take responsibility for the unscrupulous business ventures of some of your country's corporations or we just won't do business with any business in your country." The South African government can choose to stand behind the unscrupulous petroleum corporations, therein screwing over all other business in their country, or they can choose to mandate that buying oil from Iran is not allowed because it hurts the nation's economy and is looked upon poorly by many other nations.

Governments "must" be firm sometimes, particularly when it comes to corporations and their profit-oriented agendas (BP anyone?). You want to call that bullying?

In the case of Iran, as Eli indicated the issue with Iran is their refusal to "abide by IAEA monitoring to safeguard against nuclear proliferation," which means there's nothing in place within Iran to prevent nuclear weapons/waste from getting into the hands of terrorists and, in fact Iran has a long, well documented history of selling weaponry to terrorist organizations.

Sanctions are a form of economic pressure, to force Iran back to full-cooperation with IAEA, inclusive of IAEA's demand for Iran to discontinue its present activities.

It is also apparent that private institutions South African Banks as well as all US companies that wishes to transact with south africa will be prejudiced because of actions that is essentially out of their control.

But, that's precisely the point, it's not out of their control. Putting one business against another is an effective means to get things done, as these businesses can pressure their government to curtail the harmful business practices of other businesses. The control ultimately lays within the South African government, and it is the great influence of businesses that will decide what happens.

But lets focus on the Oil transaction first.
Firstly lets look at the facts these two articles present:
1. Iran is the cheapest fuel supplier at about $100 per barrel. So firstly switching to other countries will have a negative financial impact for all south africans. We are almost at $2 per liter of fuel this may drive us into that price range.

Indeed, the South African-based petroleum distributors (corporations) are exploiting the Iranian government's desperation.

It needs to be said, that articles you presented earlier are not upfront. Saudi Arabia has large oil reserves and has indicated they will accommodate any country that wishes to halt purchases from Iran. And let's not forget all the other countries that are more than willing to sell their oil. Purchasing from Iran is a choice, not a necessity.

2. Secondly the private companies that buy fuel from Iran have refineries specifically geared for Iranian fuel. As stated they will have to re-engineer their refinery to accept other fuel because of the unique chemical composition of Iranian oil. Dont ask me how it work. This cost will have to re-cooperated somewhere and most likely by raising fuel prices. However if one company sells Iranian oil and the second one doesnt we must if the prices is raised pay for the company with no Iranian oil the same higher price as there is one single price throughout South Africa. It is in fact illegal to sell fuel at a lower price.

Another point in the articles that is not upfront. The chemical composition of Iranian oil is similar to most of the oil produced in the middle east, as in Saudi Arabia. As well, the process of refineries to refine crude oil does vary, but not sufficiently as to warrant a rise in prices. That's just corporate scare tactics. I could give you information pertaining to this, so you can see how these articles I suspect were "supplied" by the oil industry, a form of propaganda. Notice how these articles are not signed? Standard fare for industry-produced articles, provided "free" to news groups.

4. There is no facts that supports that Iran is busy on a nuclear program. Or no facts presented by the articles anyway. Feel free to enlighten us.

Hmm...

Here's a good read --- http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/...ndterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20969975/#.T7mP_0VrNm0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021803378.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01nuke.html
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2010/gov2010-28.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/21/us-iran-iaea-nuclear-idUSTRE65K0ZO20100621
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-11/iran-nuclear-weapons-soviet-scientist/51166144/1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111117

And let's not forget the 7 U.N. Resolutions regarding Iran, or the many other countries that have imposed sanctions on Iran, including E.U., Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and Russia. Further sanctions are being imposed by the U.S. and it is anticipated many other nations will follow suit, precisely because the present sanctions are not curtailing Iran's efforts to develop enriched uranium. Their underground weaponry testing, consistent with nuclear development, poses ample evidence.

Anyway, Iran has lied to, and failed to disclose enrichment facilities and weapon tests to, the IAEA, in direct violation of previous agreements/treaties, of which Iran was a signatory (and some of which Iran was not).

Also in my opinion with the current economic conditions making trade more difficult and expensive and placing restrictions on oil supply just re-emphasis that Barack Obama feels absolutely nothing for the US economy or world economy and that keeping that smo in charge for another 4 years will be disastrous.

Umm, what's a smo? Anyway, it is indeed a venture that could have some (likely very little) impact on the U.S. economy, but the U.S. citizenry is almost unanimously behind such ventures precisely because of their fear of nuclear weapons (inclusive of dirty bombs) getting in the hands of terrorists hostile to the U.S..

What Eli pointed out was strong, which is that the basis for your argument is the ludicrous arguments you pose, of your trying to moralize in opposition to U.S. policies that may impact your nation's economy, particularly when it is the lack of moral policies in South Africa that has resulted in this dilemma.

You also have a very big miss regarding oil in Iran. There is only one oil company, the National Iranian Oil Company, full owned and operated by the Iranian government. So, when you're doing business with the National Iranian Oil Company, you're directly doing business with the Iranian government, which is using this money to directly fund its research into weaponry and development of enriched uranium.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Lets face it sooner or later the U.S.A. will have some "problem" with the other oil producing countries. They are muslim and obviously have a different way of thinking influenced by their religion. So there you have the crux of the dilemma :lets say we were purchasing from iraq and stopped because of the US invasion and then purchased from Iran who the U.S. had no problem with at that time and if I remember correctly almost considered them some kind of ally. Now there is a problem with Iran next probably with Saudi Arabia. We just want to buy oil:last time I looked they didnt buy the oil in slave or torture camps. The person selling the oil only help to the government maybe paying taxes. Furthermore he is probably rich the persons that will suffer is probably the millions of everyday Iranians that works for these Oil companies. Lets just say we are all kind of weary of the US morale high ground.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, it's "moral" high ground.

Anyway, you completely ignored all the evidence I presented, which you specifically requested. Instead of conceding, you decide to pose a baseless claim, almost a slippery slope fallacy, and you follow up by inferring it's a holy war.

Seems to me your arguments are getting more and more desperate and disconnected from the available facts, as you're now wearing a prognosticator's hat and selling tickets to your crystal ball sideshow.

Ah well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Welcome back Jakkals, have fun with your debates.

 

[DeletedUser]

Me:

.....Yes, there's a conflict of interests, but there's no moral high ground here. When you understand that, everything becomes a lot simpler.

Then:

......Lets just say we are all kind of weary of the US morale high ground.

*Sigh*. Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

 

[DeletedUser563]

Didnt I say I didnt have time:selling 160 used cds implies listening to each of them. But you can sigh all you want we all know the US wants to enslave the rest of the world. Bit by bit they are gaining new oil ground and then have the audacity the sheer audacity to snub out their best competition. I am deeply aggrieved my friends deeply . Next invasion will probably be in a few months time. Just after the elections so that Obama can make provision for his fat cat retirement. Yes Jakkals is back ...back to point out the atrocities of the American overlord.






Lol ...
All I can see anyway from your first 2 articles is that they want to build a power plant. Can you please provide the last report on the US safeguards... I want to see if it reads any different than the one you presented. I also dont want to dominate the debate and give perhaps Iranians a chance to comment since there is so many of them on our server mostly on colorado. Or persians anyway ...

Anyway article 3 "In his General Assembly speech, the Iranian leader lashed out at “certain powers” — an apparent reference to the United States and Israel — that violate human rights by setting up secret prisons, abducting people, holding trials and enacting secret punishments without any regard to due process," All true unfortunately...

Article 4: "that think Iran has restarted secret warhead research that had been halted in 2003. Iran, meanwhile, has been openly building its stockpile of enriched uranium, the nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs. The Tehran government insists its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

Article 5
3
The Agency has verified, through independently calibrated operator load cell readings, that, between 23 November 2009
and 1 May 2010, 6436 kg of natural UF6
was fed into the cascades, and a total of 581 kg of low enriched UF6
product and
5785 kg of UF6
tails and dump material was off-loaded into UF6
cylinders. The difference of 70 kg between the input figure
(6436 kg) and the sum of the output figures (581 kg + 5785 kg) comprises natural, depleted and low enriched UF6
arising
mainly from hold-up in the various cold traps and is not inconsistent with the design information provided by Iran.

So far only allegations not much substance. Article 5 even suggests strongly that everything is monitored and that apparently they have changed their stance on random visits as they mention several random visits carried out. So after article 5 I would say the situation is monitored and there is a willingness to comply with the organization. Of course the articles can be interpreted to the opposite as well.

Article 6 : two inspectors is banned because they are believed by Iran not to be impartial. Like the Iranians said they can be replaced by other experts. What deductions can be made from that.

Article 7: This seems more like hearsay and speculation. I see also no mention of these reports. Although I can remember the one report clearly mentioned 2 chambers but never said they were for setting of bombs.

Article 8:

I assume the reports referred to is still classified as I remember the reports you presented as older and presenting no clear evidence either way. So cannot comment on article 8.

About the Iranian Oil companies I will give you that point so perhaps they are state owned its only propaganda that they are funding nuclear bombs. The articles you quoted can all be interpreted as being duel meaning either they are building nukes or nuclear plants. The Iaea or whatever's last report was not presented by you. Ok I will give other a chance to comment.

 

[DeletedUser]

..... But you can sigh all you want we all know the US wants to enslave the rest of the world. Bit by bit they are gaining new oil ground and then have the audacity the sheer audacity to snub out their best competition. I am deeply aggrieved my friends deeply . Next invasion will probably be in a few months time. Just after the elections so that Obama can make provision for his fat cat retirement. Yes Jakkals is back ...back to point out the atrocities of the American overlord.

Don't worry - we will always have China and Russia fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are so many seriously wrong things here, lets start:

Wow... seriously wrong.

Let me clarify what sanctions are, at least in reference to the statements you made above. It is essentially a refusal to do business with any country that does business with a specific country or countries. In this particular case, it's the U.S. stating that any nation or business doing business with Iran will not be allowed to do business with any U.S. bank. As your third article clearly indicates, "all oil transactions with Iran that pass through the US financial system will be blocked." There is an effort by the U.S. to get more countries to impose same or similar sanctions, thus making it unpalatable to do business with Iran, but they're not telling anyone they cannot buy from Iran. Instead, they're making a hard choice --- do business with Iran or with the U.S., but not both. And getting others on board to impose similar sanctions will result in a --- do business with Iran or the conglomerate of U.S., France, Germany, U.K., Japan, etc etc., but not both.

As for definition you're right, but basically its a offer made by the US that no small country can afford to refuse, classic blackmail under the cloak of human rights concern...

As to this speculation that the U.S. will enter into an attack on Iran, it's always possible, but it's far more likely that Israel will fire some missiles and destroy Iran's facilities, as they did in the past, and the world will condemn the act but nothing other than that will occur, and people will go on their merry way. It is exceedingly unlikely that Obama will enter into any war without ample provocation. He doesn't follow the neo-con (Bush Jr., Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc) philosophy of imposition through force of arms with the intent of global domination. As it is, people only voted Bush Jr. in twice because they thought he was attacking the groups/countries that were responsible for 9/11. Had they known the neo-con agenda, they would have thought twice about backing the Bush administration's criminal acts.

There must have been 4 year blindness epidemic in the US at the time, or everyone kept their brains at the table in a jar.
While its true Obama probably can't afford another war he is far from peace loving.

Also, the specifics of Iraq are quite different from Iran, in that Iraq invaded Kuwait (which itself is a contested land, on a different issue altogether), and the U.S. obtained the international green light to end Iraq's hostilities, which they did. However, the cease fire was obtained through an agreement. Iraq's government, under Hussein, agreed to abide by certain rules including a no fly zone for the south and cooperation with the U.N. regarding inspections. Because Iraq did not cooperate with the U.N., the U.S. was within their rights to end the 1992' ceasefire and finish what they started. I'm not saying it was right, just that they were within their rights.

Were they sitting on that same high morale ground at the time they were selling weapons to Iraq?

Ahmedinejad heads a vile regime that happily oppresses and murders its own people. It also refuses to abide by IAEA monitoring to safeguard against nuclear proliferation.
So why would any country have relations with Iran? Ah yes, it has some cheap oil.
So please, Jakkals, stop moralising - recognise that there are only financial interests here and not ethical ones. The US wants to keep money out of Iran, other states want to buy their oil. Yes, there's a conflict of interests, but there's no moral high ground here. When you understand that, everything becomes a lot simpler.

Why would anyone have relations with USA? They are vile regime that start wars, and kill people for profit.

If you look at the things from different angle you might see that when you compare Iran and USA in terms of started wars, killed people and nuclear arsenal you might see that USA is real threat here...

And another thing, compared to Americans every country stands on higher morale ground...

No, it's not bullying, it's a choice. You can choose to do business at an establishment, or not. If that establishment says, we won't serve you because you shop at the other store, that's that establishment's prerogative and it puts the choice into the hands of the consumer as to whether to do business with one establishment or another.

And what a choice it is: "Eat 2 kg of dog crap or i will blow your brains, remember no one is forcing you to do anything, it your own free will" - Please Elmyr...

Don't worry - we will always have China and Russia fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights.

Are you implying that USA is in any way fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights?
I hope not, that would be amazingly stupid...

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you implying that USA is in any way fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights?
I hope not, that would be amazingly stupid...

That wasn't my implication. Your monopoly is not under threat.

 

[DeletedUser]

That wasn't my implication. Your monopoly is not under threat.

Sounded that way, nice to see that you still nurture "you're stupid" school of debate.

 

[DeletedUser]

As for definition you're right, but basically its a offer made by the US that no small country can afford to refuse, classic blackmail under the cloak of human rights concern...

No, refusing to do business with someone if they do business with someone else is NOT blackmail. The international community is large and there are plenty of other places to do business. The United States has one card to play at this stage, and that's the fact they are the #1 consumer nation. This means, people want to sell to the U.S., but a want is not a need, as they are not the ONLY consumer nation, just as Iran is not the ONLY petroleum producing nation. That's the skinny and it is in no way considered blackmail.

There must have been 4 year blindness epidemic in the US at the time, or everyone kept their brains at the table in a jar.

It was a 2 year blindness epidemic, as the war started on March of 2003. In any event, it wasn't everyone who voted for Bush, only 50.7% of the voters.

Anarchy111, what it really demonstrated was that propaganda lingered just long enough to ensure a second term in office.

While its true Obama probably can't afford another war he is far from peace loving.

A baseless assertion is not a viable debate tactic.

Were they sitting on that same high morale ground at the time they were selling weapons to Iraq?

You are confusing 'rights' with 'morality,' a false argument in anyone's book. You wish to argue why the U.S. sold weapons to Iraq, and yet are jumping on the side of a debate in which South Africa is buying oil from Iran, when it is already known that money is being used to finance their purchase of missile weaponry and development of enriched uranium.

How does your hypocrisy work for you?

Why would anyone have relations with USA? They are vile regime that start wars, and kill people for profit.

I see, why would anyone have relations with Iran? They are a vile regime that supports terrorism and kills it's own people for ideology?

Just had to pose the contra to your silly argument. The fact is people have relations with countries because of the "bottom line." South Africa wouldn't be in this dilemma if it wasn't for the "bottom line." As it is, they want to do business with BOTH the vile regime of USA and the vile regime of Iran.

Kinda undermines your silly argument, doesn't it?

If you look at the things from different angle you might see that when you compare Iran and USA in terms of started wars, killed people and nuclear arsenal you might see that USA is real threat here...

Indeed, if you're sitting inside a toilet, and looking at a pretty woman from that angle, you're sure to get a face full of crap. Your argument is opportunistic and distorted. Perhaps you want to argue that anyone entering into any conflict is a bad person?

And another thing, compared to Americans every country stands on higher morale ground...

Would you care to provide evidence to substantiate your claims? Do realize you said "every" country, so I anticipate this will require extensive research resulting in evidence to show that "every" country stands on higher "moral" ground? (Btw, what's with you guys and your inability to spell moral?).

While you're at it, please bother to define "higher moral ground" in the context of these discussions. This whole moral ground argument is a baseless stance of righteous indignation. Baseless, because it has no substance and is instead posed from a relative perspective, not any degree of facts or evidence.

And what a choice it is: "Eat 2 kg of dog crap or i will blow your brains, remember no one is forcing you to do anything, it your own free will" - Please Elmyr...

See, that's the typical distortion you present in this debate. You are equating a refusal of commerce with shooting someone in the head. That's not only false logic, it's a blatant demonstration that you're merely posing your own pile of stinky propaganda.

 

[DeletedUser563]

I am just going to concentrate on the one aspect the valid point that Anarchy11 made that it is blackmail. For simplicity sake blackmail is the threat of doing something or not doing something an omission to force a person the blackmailed to do an action that is not to his benefit. Lets study it from South Africa's perspective:

And we all know how Americans operate: With their false sense of pride and believe in the American dream and squashing everything considered a "threat to the dream" this sanctions will escalate into companies now blocking South Africa.

You Hellstromm wants to teach me a South African that lived through +- 22 years of sanctions what the effect will be of sanctions. Of course there will be a effect..you cannot simply with everything turn to another nations ...the us companies that support us will survive those that wont will have the nations hatred turned on them forever like Pepsi who has never been able to regain any market share in our country after they imposed sanctions. Of course our economy will suffer you are eliminating 200 million potential customers to our companies.. you dont have to be donald trump or richard branson to figure that this will affect our economy negatively and you could not put actual conclusive proof on the table like with all american ideas just a lot of smoke and mirrors

To all black south africans and to our black government you are equating their actions with apartheid and are giving them the same treatment as south africa suffered under apartheid. I saw a speech of Condoleeza Rice to a South African group once.. her disrespect for Africans was apparent and her sympathy was absolutely zero.
The outrage that this will cause will never heal. And there should be outrage in the African American community as well for you cannot even respect the most successful African country's independence and ability to make their own decisions. You see that is the angle that you are apparently totally missing and that is that this will be a slap in the face of our government and all south africans. Furthermore with this apparent disrespect to their sovereignty you will force our country to turn to China and other Brics countries . As an example I saw yesterday that India actually buys 80% of all gold.

But not all products can be bough elsewhere and you are going to ruin a lot of South African export companies whose biggest trading partner is the US. If they go bankrupt actual people loses their jobs . Your moral high ground is just american's brainwashed thoughts about the american dream and your nations sick and perverted attempts to maintain it at all costs.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you implying that USA is in any way fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights?
I hope not, that would be amazingly stupid...

Sounded that way, nice to see that you still nurture "you're stupid" school of debate.

You're spitting on your own image in a mirror.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes yes, we all know you two hate Americans and you're doing a pretty good job of sounding like a corporate schill there Jakkals. Let me know when you start presenting valid arguments and supporting evidence instead of anecdotal fabrications like, "African-American Condoleeza Rice hates Africans."

Btw, you completely ignored all my questions and all my arguments. If you want to have a debate, you kinda need to participate in the whole debate part of a debate, instead of giving speeches from a podium of faux indignation and then repeating yourself. Also, your definition of blackmail is incorrect and your application of such in this debate is moreso incorrect. I already addressed this, but if you want a more detailed explanation as to what a blackmail entails, I suppose I can spare a few minutes.

 

[DeletedUser563]

The american arrogance can never be fed. Look at both my 2 previous posts they provide ample points in my opinion. but your nitpicking again and i never said she hates africans your putting words in my mouth.

i also dont hate americans there is some fine americans that i have met im referring to politicians the uber species and all these americans who is so virulent in their attack of everything non american. But i still dont hate them, hate is a very strong word . Hate equates to bad karma.. which means down the line bad luck to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, refusing to do business with someone if they do business with someone else is NOT blackmail. The international community is large and there are plenty of other places to do business. The United States has one card to play at this stage, and that's the fact they are the #1 consumer nation. This means, people want to sell to the U.S., but a want is not a need, as they are not the ONLY consumer nation, just as Iran is not the ONLY petroleum producing nation. That's the skinny and it is in no way considered blackmail.

US is powerful nation with huge influence on many nations, going against US will means you will be faced with sanctions from 90% of Europe. It's still old fashioned arm twisting anyway you put it Hell...

It was a 2 year blindness epidemic, as the war started on March of 2003. In any event, it wasn't everyone who voted for Bush, only 50.7% of the voters.

Anarchy111, what it really demonstrated was that propaganda lingered just long enough to ensure a second term in office.

I am just amazed what amount of brainless propaganda people are willing to swallow, that includes every nation not only American.

A baseless assertion is not a viable debate tactic.

Just stating Obama is very far from perfection in every way...

You are confusing 'rights' with 'morality,' a false argument in anyone's book. You wish to argue why the U.S. sold weapons to Iraq, and yet are jumping on the side of a debate in which South Africa is buying oil from Iran, when it is already known that money is being used to finance their purchase of missile weaponry and development of enriched uranium.

How does your hypocrisy work for you?

As it was known that Iraq was making WMD?

I was just pointing out hypocrisy and lack of logic there, US sold Iraq among other things chemical weapons, US did not have any consequences of their actions yet they have "right"
to invade.
What kills me in US foreign policy is invading of more or less functional states under dumb excuses of human rights protection. What is left of that countries after "democracy" gets there is whole new tragic story.


Be sure to explain me that distinction between rights and morality, and be sure to include where are rights and where is morale in every war US was included in any way in last , lets say 20 years.

I see, why would anyone have relations with Iran? They are a vile regime that supports terrorism and kills it's own people for ideology?

Just had to pose the contra to your silly argument. The fact is people have relations with countries because of the "bottom line." South Africa wouldn't be in this dilemma if it wasn't for the "bottom line." As it is, they want to do business with BOTH the vile regime of USA and the vile regime of Iran.

Kinda undermines your silly argument, doesn't it?

As i posed contra to Eli's argument, look it up.
No, not at all, US can and should be blamed for much more things than only this SA -US clash.

Indeed, if you're sitting inside a toilet, and looking at a pretty woman from that angle, you're sure to get a face full of crap. Your argument is opportunistic and distorted. Perhaps you want to argue that anyone entering into any conflict is a bad person?

Meaningless analogy, it completely misses the point. What I am arguing is that there were no moral or rightful excuse for any of US interventions, (Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq 1 and 2 etc)

Anyone as in any country or any person?

Would you care to provide evidence to substantiate your claims? Do realize you said "every" country, so I anticipate this will require extensive research resulting in evidence to show that "every" country stands on higher "moral" ground? (Btw, what's with you guys and your inability to spell moral?).

While you're at it, please bother to define "higher moral ground" in the context of these discussions. This whole moral ground argument is a baseless stance of righteous indignation. Baseless, because it has no substance and is instead posed from a relative perspective, not any degree of facts or evidence.

We are probably dumb as hell because we can't spell as a native English speakers, so now let's wait a second and Eli will use her god given right and proclaim everyone but herself unfit to hold a debate. Jeeez...

Really lame remark about spelling Hell, very disappointing to have that coming from you, but anyway lets get back on topic.

Yes i said every country using some simple criteria, number of conflicts started, people killed, ask average Serb, Iraqi or Lybian how do they feel about democracy through superior firepower they received? How do they live now and how safe their country is now?
That is the basis for my argument that every country stands on superior moral ground compared to US.

Higher moral ground in context of this discussion could be simplified to next sentence: Someone who invaded and destroyed several countries for no reason other than profit (IMO) should not have the right to impose moral argument to anyone. Satisfied?

See, that's the typical distortion you present in this debate. You are equating a refusal of commerce with shooting someone in the head. That's not only false logic, it's a blatant demonstration that you're merely posing your own pile of stinky propaganda.

Not at all Hell, refusing to do what US asks from you if you don't have the backing from other superpower is equal to suicide for a little country.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's still old fashioned arm twisting anyway you put it Elmyr...

Really lame remark about spelling Elmyr, very disappointing to have that coming from you, but anyway lets get back on topic...


Not at all Elmyr, refusing to do what US asks from you if you don't have the backing from other superpower is equal to suicide for a little country.

I know I'm just a dumb American, but could you explain to me what any of that has to do with Elmyr?

 

[DeletedUser563]

I think he is speculating that Hellstromm is elmyr. Perhaps there is some truth in it. [hides under desk to avoid flame grams from elmyr and hellstromm]