Ebadi: 'If you want to help Iran, don't attack'

[Iranpaak]

Amir jAn,
Of course they did!! They didn't have to remove Dr. Mosaddegh from power, all they needed to do land british troops in Khoozestan and take over oil fields. They had the reasoning to justify their action too, we were the party who breached the age old contract with AIOC.
BTW: I have read the "All the Shah's men" so many time that some time I feel like I'm watching a movie.....LOOL

Rasoul JAn, they did not invade Khuzestan possibly because they did not see it feasible or practical, or they simply could not do it. But they did blockade Iranian waters and ports which almost paralyzed Mossadegh's government. Remamber the British after WWII was not the same British as the British before the war, it was significantly weakened. Once they failed in removing Mossadegh by force (or Antrick ) and by legal means ( they did not go anywhere in the UN as Iran was well represented by Mossadegh himself ), they started to sell and frame the issue as the USSR menace.

 

[Flint]

However, it would be naive to think that the American public is not paying for the increase in price of oil/gasoline and the oil company executies and top stockholders are not benefitting immensely from it.

I own Exxon. I am the Ruling Class. Finally!

 

[Motori]

Rasoul jaan, I think you misunderstood my post. I neither suggested, nor implied that the US is fighting these wars to "steal" oil. The assertion that anyone can benefit from these types of conflicts by literally removing barrels of oil is absolutely ridiculous. However, it would be naive to think that the American public is not paying for the increase in price of oil/gasoline and the oil company executies and top stockholders are not benefitting immensely from it.

Mr. G
That is the side effect (bonus I might say). Let's presume BP, Vlero, Chevron-Texaco and alike are making 20 billion extra money (which they don't) still it is 500 times less what U.S has spent on Iraq war and still on going.

 

[Bi-honar]

I own Exxon. I am the Ruling Class. Finally!

LOL. I don't think 0.00001% of the shares qualifies you Flint jaan.

 

[Bi-honar]

Mr. G
That is the side effect (bonus I might say). Let's presume BP, Vlero, Chevron-Texaco and alike are making 20 billion extra money (which they don't) still it is 500 times less what U.S has spent on Iraq war and still on going.

I know that Rasoul jaan. But every member of the US public is paying for this war as a tax payer and the contribution of these executives and shareholders as a member of the public, even assuming that their tax contributions is relatively higher, is negligable compared to the billions they've raked in. This is common knowledge and I'm not sure why you'e trying to put a twist on it.

If you really want to convince me, please dig up the net worth for the top 10 stockholders of US oil companies in 2002 versus today. We'll compare that to the average net worth increase of the American public and see if it's even in the same magnitude. Is that fair enough?

 

[Flint]

You can either complain about the top 10 stockholders or try to become one. So what is it gonna be, BH? Envy won't get you anywhere. Incidentally, Exxon is a publicly held company that anyone can own. If you didn't buy into the them when they were going up, your loss. Incidentally, you do own Exxon, you just don't know it.

 

[Bi-honar]

Envy?! How do you come up with these things bro? When I said every Joe Shmoe off the street, you didn't think I was talking about myself, did you?! LOL

We're just having a discussion about oil, who the real players are, and the driving force behind empires. This is the way the world is and has always been. I didn't say I can't come to grips with this or I am anti-establishment! Nor did I suggest that I can't hold my own with this class or any other class.

As we say in Persian, I've ripped a few underwears over the years and even though I thought like you at some point, I came to realize that the people having $2,000 plates at charity galas with the mayor and the police chief and even prime minister behind the scenes are the same people that are called "very bad and evil" when the curtains go up. Personally, I'm not a fan of these categorizations anyway, but the illusion is a necessary part of the system and I'm just letting you know about it. It's much easier to wiggle your way through when you go with the flow.

 

[Motori]

Bi-honar;548033]I know that Rasoul jaan. But every member of the US public is paying for this war as a tax payer and the contribution of these executives and shareholders as a member of the public, even assuming that their tax contributions is relatively higher, is negligable compared to the billions they've raked in. This is common knowledge and I'm not sure why you'e trying to put a twist on it.

Mr. G
No twist from my side, I don't like it when some one throws it at me so I always stay away from it myself. My argument is toward the presumption of U.S Iraq war being about stealing Iraqi oil which is not.

If you really want to convince me, please dig up the net worth for the top 10 stockholders of US oil companies in 2002 versus today. We'll compare that to the average net worth increase of the American public and see if it's even in the same magnitude. Is that fair enough?

No argument there, but 2003 U.S war against Iraq was not planned for oil companies to make billions, the tax payers money has been and is being spent in Iraq is 100s of time more than that profit. Only strategic gains can justify such a spending not oil.

 

[Motori]

Rasoul jaan, digeh azyat nakon aghaye khoobam. I'm not sitting on the other side of the ocean not knowing what's going on and I'm sure I don't have to explain what "bundlers" are to you.

Mr. G
I was responding to your claim stating that one has to be from a rich family in order to reach the higher echelon of American politics. I gave you Bill Clinton as an example. There are 100s, check these guys out:
Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas (born in Georgia to a family with not enough food to eat, him and his mother were homeless when his father left them at age 2 )
Colin Powell (Born in HARLEM to a poor immigrant parents from Jamaica)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (working as a Gym floor sweeping janitor in city of Munich at age 18)
John Edward (His father was a textile mill floor worker and his mother used to deliver news papers to support the family)
Richard Nixon
Ronald Regan
Harry Truman
*
*
*

 

[Flint]

If you really want to convince me, please dig up the net worth for the top 10 stockholders of US oil companies in 2002 versus today.

Not to beat a dead horse but the top 10 stockholders in the energy sector are not the CEOs. They are the institutional investors; the 401Ks, Vanguards and Fidelity funds of the world. The only way you can lose is NOT to be in one. If oil companies had that much clout, why was oil trading at $10 a barrel in the 80s and gas was 99ç a gallon? What can't oil always be $150 a barrel? Look, the leftist view of the economy was discredited right about when the Berlin wall came down. Let go of it.

 

[Bi-honar]

Good arguments gentlemen.

Rasoul jaan, I didn't mention rich in my post. You may have thought that I implied it, but I only said there is a "ruling class" and you need "connections galore" to get in. All the people you mentioned paid their dues (i.e. served this class) and by the time they were elected or appointed to their respective positions they did have the necessary connections. Having said that, I don't consider Arnold, Collin Powel or Clarence Thomas and many of the other names you mentioned to be a part of this "ruling class". One doesn't necessarily need to be in the spotlight to be directing policies.

And yes, as I said earlier the assertion that US policy toward Iraq was or is to steal oil (i.e. physically remove barrels of oil) is ridiculous. However, I don't agree with you that the money being "spent" on the Iraq war is "100's of times more" than the profit generated by certain special interest groups. The cumulative increase in Exxon Mobil's net income alone (not total revenue) since 2002 is over $100 billion USD (approximately 1/10 of the cost of the Iraq war! However, the real comparison should be between spending and income - not profit. Exxon Mobil's revenue has had a cumulative increase of over $400 billion USD since the Iraq invasion!

That's just one company of course. And when we use the word spending, you make it sound like the money is being spent on the Iraqi's. It is being taken out of the average taxpayer's pockets and "spent" in

 

[Motori]

Bi-honar;548486]Good arguments gentlemen.

Rasoul jaan, I didn't mention rich in my post. You may have thought that I implied it, but I only said there is a "ruling class" and you need "connections galore" to get in. All the people you mentioned paid their dues (i.e. served this class) and by the time they were elected or appointed to their respective positions they did have the necessary connections. Having said that, I don't consider Arnold, Collin Powel or Clarence Thomas and many of the other names you mentioned to be a part of this "ruling class". One doesn't necessarily need to be in the spotlight to be directing policies.

Mr. G
We can agree on that. Also I didn't mean that any homeless can put his name on the ballet and catch a seat in Senate, I meant the ladder is always there and any one can climb it, even if he/she is not from a rich and influential family.

And yes, as I said earlier the assertion that US policy toward Iraq was or is to steal oil (i.e. physically remove barrels of oil) is ridiculous. However, I don't agree with you that the money being "spent" on the Iraq war is "100's of times more" than the profit generated by certain special interest groups. The cumulative increase in Exxon Mobil's net income alone (not total revenue) since 2002 is over $100 billion USD (approximately 1/10 of the cost of the Iraq war! However, the real comparison should be between spending and income - not profit. Exxon Mobil's revenue has had a cumulative increase of over $400 billion USD since the Iraq invasion!

All that money is not gained because of the war, Exxon-Mobil is a huge functioning corporation with big annual growth most of the time, we need to know how much of that $400 Bil is the result of U.S Iraq war which I already accepted and called it a side effect.

That's just one company of course. And when we use the word spending, you make it sound like the money is being spent on the Iraqi's. It is being taken out of the average taxpayer's pockets and "spent" in.

I don't know how did you come up with that assumption. In my first reply to you I already mentioned that tax payers money is being spend for U.S long term strategic presence in the region + if necessary control of oil spigots considering throttling economy of China and India, both are vital for long term American Economic supremacy if they want to remain as world super power. Iraqis have never been the subject but the means.

 

[Bi-honar]

LOL. Rasoul jaan, it looks like we're agreeing on both the strategic presence and the "side effects/side bonus". I guess the rest of it is just about which came first, and I say we agree to agree and leave that last point for the jury to decide, once they're done with the chicken and egg thing.

 

[Motori]

LOL. Rasoul jaan, it looks like we're agreeing on both the strategic presence and the "side effects/side bonus". I guess the rest of it is just about which came first, and I say we agree to agree and leave that last point for the jury to decide, once they're done with the chicken and egg thing.

LOOOOOL
Mr. G
Happy ending has always been a preferred trait in my book.....:cheers:

 

[Bi-honar]

Not to beat a dead horse but the top 10 stockholders in the energy sector are not the CEOs. They are the institutional investors; the 401Ks, Vanguards and Fidelity funds of the world. The only way you can lose is NOT to be in one. If oil companies had that much clout, why was oil trading at $10 a barrel in the 80s and gas was 99ç a gallon? What can't oil always be $150 a barrel? Look, the leftist view of the economy was discredited right about when the Berlin wall came down. Let go of it.

LMAO @ leftist view and the Berlin Wall. Oh no, Canada has been infiltrated by Commis. How do you come up with this stuff bro? There's a whole range of existence between good and evil, friend and enemy, left or right, Capitalist or Communist. Do they teach you guys to simplify everything that much down there?

Only 52% of Exxon Mobil stocks is owned by private investors. That leaves $250 billion USD worth of it elsewhere. Coincidentally, this 48% of shares have enjoyed an appreciation of over $150 billion USD since the Iraq invasion. And to answer your question of why this wasn't done in the 80's, I'll just give you key phrases and you look it up:

* 45-80: Unprecendented gorwth
* 80's: Deregulation, record inflation levels, tripling national debt, Black Monday
* Early 90's: Recession
* Late 90's to Iraq invasion: Unparalleled economic growth in non-war times.
* Now: Potentially worst recession since the great depression.

Obviously they thought it wouldn't take so long and you guys could ride it out after that successful run from the mid 90's to the early 21st centure. Oops!

LOOOOOL
Mr. G
Happy ending has always been a preferred trait in my book.....

Me too Rasoul jaan, me too. :cheers:

 

[Flint]

Exxon Mobil's revenue has had a cumulative increase of over $400 billion USD since the Iraq invasion!

No one, NO ONE, argued at the time that as a result of the invasion of Iraq oil would be more expensive. Precisely the opposite was argued, and widely accepted, that by removing Saddam, suspending the embargo and bringing Iraqi oil online, oil would be cheaper. Problem with conspiracy theories is that they are always formulated after the fact. If oil was at $10 a barrel now, you would say see, US wants cheap oil at the expense of the third world so they go around invading countries. You can spin it anyway you want to fit your theory. Again, whatever profit Exxon is making now either goes to its stockholders, the ordinary people, or is invested. There is nowhere else for it to go.

 

[Bi-honar]

No one, NO ONE, argued at the time that as a result of the invasion of Iraq oil would be more expensive. Precisely the opposite was argued, and widely accepted, that by removing Saddam, suspending the embargo and bringing Iraqi oil online, oil would be cheaper. Problem with conspiracy theories is that they are always formulated after the fact. If oil was at $10 a barrel now, you would say see, US wants cheap oil at the expense of the third world so they go around invading countries. You can spin it anyway you want to fit your theory. Again, whatever profit Exxon is making now either goes to its stockholders, the ordinary people, or is invested. There is nowhere else for it to go.

You're funny bro and I mean that in a good way of course. What conspiracy theory? This is the way the world runs. Money talks and those with more money talk louder. Are you having a hard time coming to grips with this? Or do you think I'm having a hard time with it, 'cause I'm not - I'm living it every day.

I'm just confused what you're arguing. Of course no one in the administration would have said (not that did not know) the average American would be paying 3 times as much at the gas pump. Who would have supported the war? This is the same administration that inisted there were WMD's or else no one would support the war. That's what I mean by the illusion. And as far as everyone outside was concerned, this was going to be a quick and painless wham bam, thank you ma'am scenario (but again the insiders knew how long this conflict would last - there are many many now declassified documents). Otherwise the price of oil had already started going up even when the talk of invasion began and this was specifically mentioned in a pre-invasion UN report.

 

[Motori]

You're funny bro and I mean that in a good way of course. What conspiracy theory? This is the way the world runs. Money talks and those with more money talk louder. Are you having a hard time coming to grips with this? Or do you think I'm having a hard time with it, 'cause I'm not - I'm living it every day.

I'm just confused what you're arguing. Of course no one in the administration would have said (not that did not know) the average American would be paying 3 times as much at the gas pump. Who would have supported the war? This is the same administration that inisted there were WMD's or else no one would support the war. That's what I mean by the illusion. And as far as everyone outside was concerned, this was going to be a quick and painless wham bam, thank you ma'am scenario (but again the insiders knew how long this conflict would last - there are many many now declassified documents). Otherwise the price of oil had already started going up even when the talk of invasion began and this was specifically mentioned in a pre-invasion UN report.

Mr. G
Care to guide me in a right direction finding any of those declassified documents which state current administration was 100% aware that war in Iraq will take more than 5 years and it will end up being a bloody erosive war. Thanx
If GWB knew the war will last more than 5 years he wouldn't make a fool of himself when he landed on USS Lincoln and equivocally claimed victory.
BTW: Unless privileged with some divine prophetic power no one can predict the unknowns of next 30 minutes let alone over 5 years. History has made fool of those who claim they know the future.

 

[Bi-honar]

Sorry Rasoul jaan, I don't believe my use of the word declassified was fully justified or proper. However, I trust the following should be sufficient examples that this would not be a quick wham bam thank you Saddam solution. Obviously as you have stated there is no 100% way of knowing anything, but a good leader would make the best decision based on ALL perspectives offered to him and based just on what I'm presenting below (and I'm sure there are many other examples) it wouldn't have taken a genius to put 2 and 2 together.

* New York times reported on 08/0202 a panel of experts on Iraq "warnning" the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Nearly all the experts argued that setting up a stable, pro-Western government in Baghdad would require a huge infusion of aid and a long term commitment of American troops to maintain peace.”

* Wall Street Journal on 08/25/02 prints a column from Brent Scowdraft saying that "the toppling of Saddam’s regime would destabilize the Middle East and thus “turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

09/04/2002 The Washington Post reports former Navy Secretary saying the administration will put US in Iraq for decades. "The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.”

The rest, I'll just provide as summaries:

September 15, 2002: White House Economic Adviser Says Iraq Invasion Will Cost Up to $200 Billion

September 30, 2002: Congressional Budget Office Says Occupation of Iraq Could Cost Over $272 Billion

November 2002: Wilson (former US dimplomat): Iraq Occupation Will Be a ‘Very Nasty Affair’

November 1, 2002: Middle East Expert Predicts US Invasion of Iraq Will Lead to More Recruits for Al-Qaeda

January 2003: CIA Analyst Warns in Paper That Establishing Democracy in Iraq Will Not Be Easy; Ethnic and Religious Divisions May Fuel Violence

Late January 2003: US Army War College Report Predicts Civil War in Post-Saddam Iraq

February 16, 2003: Experts Estimate Cost of Iraq War at up to $682 Billion

February 25, 2003: Top Army General Says ‘Several Hundred Thousand Soldiers’ Will Be Needed to Secure Iraq

February 26, 2003: Classified State Department Report Predicts Civil Unrest and Sectarian Violence in Post-Invasion Iraq

December 3, 2003: Study Finds Iraq Invasion Could Cost Almost $2 Trillion

 

[HMS Iran]

Shirine Ebadi is a patiare

? Patriot? You mean? I do not think so........she has acted very strangely in past 2 years