We can't afford a nuclear Iran
- Thread starter zoofer
- Start date
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
While my head may be stuck up my own arse yours is stuck up someone elses, and your pathetic understanding of human rights is
from a purely American perspective, while the United States debateably provides an acceptable level of human rights domestically it consistantly violates those human rights with respect to foreign affairs, and in the most inhumane manner. Overall looking at the big picture (and I know you don't see it) there are few other countries even approach the horrific levels of human rights abuse conducted systematically by the US.
Of course Iran is a violater of human rights, of that I have no doubts, if you're serious about Iranian human rights abuse read about life under the previous American supported monarchy. Of course you won't because you're stuck up Uncle Sams arse and he can do no wrong. :lol:
Colpy said:
While my head may be stuck up my own arse yours is stuck up someone elses, and your pathetic understanding of human rights is
from a purely American perspective, while the United States debateably provides an acceptable level of human rights domestically it consistantly violates those human rights with respect to foreign affairs, and in the most inhumane manner. Overall looking at the big picture (and I know you don't see it) there are few other countries even approach the horrific levels of human rights abuse conducted systematically by the US.
Of course Iran is a violater of human rights, of that I have no doubts, if you're serious about Iranian human rights abuse read about life under the previous American supported monarchy. Of course you won't because you're stuck up Uncle Sams arse and he can do no wrong. :lol:
RE: We can't afford a nuc
It matters not in the least who farts in the offal office the system dictates the policy the ape in the suit parrots the company line.
It matters not in the least who farts in the offal office the system dictates the policy the ape in the suit parrots the company line.
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
Still waiting for a prelim on that one.
Can you just post a link for these sources, it would be alot easier than trying to remember what the no votes were in response too.
On non-proliferation, the no was in response to wording if that's the same document.
cortezzz said:
Still waiting for a prelim on that one.
Can you just post a link for these sources, it would be alot easier than trying to remember what the no votes were in response too.
On non-proliferation, the no was in response to wording if that's the same document.
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuc
Actually it does. The system is quite often dictated through domestic organizational preference, which can and can't be in line with the leader. In the 80's it sure as hell was in favour of Regan.
darkbeaver said:
Actually it does. The system is quite often dictated through domestic organizational preference, which can and can't be in line with the leader. In the 80's it sure as hell was in favour of Regan.
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
ROGUE STATE : third edition
by william blum
chapter 20-- the US versus the world at the united nations
isbn 1-5671-374-3
ah yes-- the wording
like the wording of say-- an international war crimes tribunal---
the wording often means
something like
this UN resolution recognises that the US and its proxy states are above international law
rogue state
Said1 said:cortezzz said:
Still waiting for a prelim on that one.
Can you just post a link for these sources, it would be alot easier than trying to remember what the no votes were in response too.
On non-proliferation, the no was in response to wording if that's the same document.
ROGUE STATE : third edition
by william blum
chapter 20-- the US versus the world at the united nations
isbn 1-5671-374-3
ah yes-- the wording
like the wording of say-- an international war crimes tribunal---
the wording often means
something like
this UN resolution recognises that the US and its proxy states are above international law
rogue state
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuc
Consensus and domestic preference is a result of manufactured consent to support the necessary illusion which is always inline with the system. Regan Clinton Carter Nixson Johnson Bush all followed the exact same foreign policy of conquest, that policy was predetermined decades ago, it is the life blood of the Empire. The differences between these individuals and there policys are miniscule, small potatoes.
Said1 said:
Consensus and domestic preference is a result of manufactured consent to support the necessary illusion which is always inline with the system. Regan Clinton Carter Nixson Johnson Bush all followed the exact same foreign policy of conquest, that policy was predetermined decades ago, it is the life blood of the Empire. The differences between these individuals and there policys are miniscule, small potatoes.
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
And sometimes the UN can't agree on what fits the framework of their conventions in relation to what exactly defines genocide and what defines a civil matter, when the time comes. Afterwards, they can be all apologetic, and say "never again". Tricky, tricky.
At least they have a forum where they can hash it out, so they can at least look busy.
That's one of the number one rules in the fast food service industry "always look busy".
I've seen a link somewhere showing resolutions and votes.
I wasn't being facetious in asking, I thought that's what you were copying from. Sometime the absent votes are more telling than the nays and yays.
cortezzz said:Said1 said:cortezzz said:
Still waiting for a prelim on that one.
Can you just post a link for these sources, it would be alot easier than trying to remember what the no votes were in response too.
On non-proliferation, the no was in response to wording if that's the same document.
ROGUE STATE : third edition
by william blum
chapter 20-- the US versus the world at the united nations
isbn 1-5671-374-3
ah yes-- the wording
like the wording of say-- an international war crimes tribunal---
the wording often means
something like
this UN resolution recognises that the US and its proxy states are above international law
rogue state
And sometimes the UN can't agree on what fits the framework of their conventions in relation to what exactly defines genocide and what defines a civil matter, when the time comes. Afterwards, they can be all apologetic, and say "never again". Tricky, tricky.
At least they have a forum where they can hash it out, so they can at least look busy.
That's one of the number one rules in the fast food service industry "always look busy".
I've seen a link somewhere showing resolutions and votes.
I wasn't being facetious in asking, I thought that's what you were copying from. Sometime the absent votes are more telling than the nays and yays.
Beav wrote: "We can't afford not to have a nuclear Iran." can you explain what you mean by that statement?
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuc
I'm not talking about consensus, I'm talking about insitutional preferences. Foreign Affairs would prefer diplomacy, however their influence on policy is what matters more to the Dept Head since they would get credit and funding for their implementation of whatever policy - hence the pressure. Like a turf war.
I know that's not a good example, since the military institution in America is so big, moreso under Regan (didn't he set records for deficit spending on defense during peace times?) It would be a good example in Canada though.
darkbeaver said:[q
Consensus and domestic preference is a result of manufactured consent to support the necessary illusion which is always inline with the system. Regan Clinton Carter Nixson Johnson Bush all followed the exact same foreign policy of conquest, that policy was predetermined decades ago, it is the life blood of the Empire. The differences between these individuals and there policys are miniscule, small potatoes.
I'm not talking about consensus, I'm talking about insitutional preferences. Foreign Affairs would prefer diplomacy, however their influence on policy is what matters more to the Dept Head since they would get credit and funding for their implementation of whatever policy - hence the pressure. Like a turf war.
I know that's not a good example, since the military institution in America is so big, moreso under Regan (didn't he set records for deficit spending on defense during peace times?) It would be a good example in Canada though.
Beav:
If you're ever in a used book store, grab a copy of "Essence of Decision" by Grahm Allison. It gives a really good account of organizational and bureaucratic theory precluding events and policy. His book is set around the Cuban Missle Crisis and is really detailed. There's usually several copies of it, priced at a quarter in used stores.
If you're ever in a used book store, grab a copy of "Essence of Decision" by Grahm Allison. It gives a really good account of organizational and bureaucratic theory precluding events and policy. His book is set around the Cuban Missle Crisis and is really detailed. There's usually several copies of it, priced at a quarter in used stores.
RE: We can't afford a nuc
Institutional preferences are not immune to the pressures of consensus, the first business of any institution is survival and continuation, when we consider imperial diplomacy do we not consider the military behind the diplomat, it's impossible to separate the two departments, they are separated by a phone call and nothing else. If you're discussing something with a gun to your head how will it affect your answer?
I'll add the book to my suggested reading list gathered in this foroum
let me see oh yes that's #157. :lol:
Institutional preferences are not immune to the pressures of consensus, the first business of any institution is survival and continuation, when we consider imperial diplomacy do we not consider the military behind the diplomat, it's impossible to separate the two departments, they are separated by a phone call and nothing else. If you're discussing something with a gun to your head how will it affect your answer?
I'll add the book to my suggested reading list gathered in this foroum
let me see oh yes that's #157. :lol:
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
i didnt think you were being facetious
i merely cited the referance in case anyone was interested in pursuing it further
i wasnt being sarcastic
im not defending the UN here
and of course as you say much game playing occurs here
the point i was making was the manner in which the US-- at the UN is often at odds with the majority of its members about matters that the average joe-- might be surprised at -
ie one of the necessary illusions
Said1 said:cortezzz said:Said1 said:cortezzz said:
Still waiting for a prelim on that one.
Can you just post a link for these sources, it would be alot easier than trying to remember what the no votes were in response too.
On non-proliferation, the no was in response to wording if that's the same document.
ROGUE STATE : third edition
by william blum
chapter 20-- the US versus the world at the united nations
isbn 1-5671-374-3
ah yes-- the wording
like the wording of say-- an international war crimes tribunal---
the wording often means
something like
this UN resolution recognises that the US and its proxy states are above international law
rogue state
And sometimes the UN can't agree on what fits the framework of their conventions in relation to what exactly defines genocide and what defines a civil matter, when the time comes. Afterwards, they can be all apologetic, and say "never again". Tricky, tricky.
At least they have a forum where they can hash it out, so they can at least look busy.
That's one of the number one rules in the fast food service industry "always look busy".
I've seen a link somewhere showing resolutions and votes.
I wasn't being facetious in asking, I thought that's what you were copying from. Sometime the absent votes are more telling than the nays and yays.
i didnt think you were being facetious
i merely cited the referance in case anyone was interested in pursuing it further
i wasnt being sarcastic
im not defending the UN here
and of course as you say much game playing occurs here
the point i was making was the manner in which the US-- at the UN is often at odds with the majority of its members about matters that the average joe-- might be surprised at -
ie one of the necessary illusions
I get a kick out of folks who live in a cushy existence and call for the end of a free western society.
These same people would cower and beg for help from those they claim to despise if their masochistic wishes ever came true.
The UN, by it's own hand, has become a contradiction. A farce, a paper tiger.
Such a waste of good intention.
M
These same people would cower and beg for help from those they claim to despise if their masochistic wishes ever came true.
The UN, by it's own hand, has become a contradiction. A farce, a paper tiger.
Such a waste of good intention.
M
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuc
That's what I meant by "turff".
The nature of the threat has primacy over insitution, at first. I have no arguement with that.That's why I said the United States isn't a good example since their military is so big and far reaching. In light of the cold war and the percieved threat of Russia, I wouldn't expect Regan to do anything less than what he did, in retrospect. There was probably an over all agreeable consensus at the time too - or not - ok, I don't really know, I'm guessing.
In other instances, there are institutional preferences and pressures affecting internal interests that need to be protected shaping policy. This could be anything, I can't think of an example but we're on the same page there. I also thought you meant public consensus - which we would like to think influences policy, but doesn't often happen that way.
Good. I'm glad to see you take all recommendations seriously.
darkbeaver said:
That's what I meant by "turff".
The nature of the threat has primacy over insitution, at first. I have no arguement with that.That's why I said the United States isn't a good example since their military is so big and far reaching. In light of the cold war and the percieved threat of Russia, I wouldn't expect Regan to do anything less than what he did, in retrospect. There was probably an over all agreeable consensus at the time too - or not - ok, I don't really know, I'm guessing.
In other instances, there are institutional preferences and pressures affecting internal interests that need to be protected shaping policy. This could be anything, I can't think of an example but we're on the same page there. I also thought you meant public consensus - which we would like to think influences policy, but doesn't often happen that way.
Good. I'm glad to see you take all recommendations seriously.