Dealing with Achmedinajad | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Dealing with Achmedinajad

How far would you go prevent him from obtaining nukes?

  • Say mean things and hope he reforms

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Oh, the changes I speak of include killing homosexuals, and marrying your adolescent child while they are in junior high school. Sharia Law is not the way I will live in this world; not my life. People should take a long, hard look at what they are playing with. Read the instructions.
 
Oh, the changes I speak of include killing homosexuals, and marrying your adolescent child while they are in junior high school. Sharia Law is not the way I will live in this world; not my life. People should take a long, hard look at what they are playing with. Read the instructions.

What has sharia law got to do with the US wanting to get to the oil under Iran?
 
The Complexity of Global Politics
Political theory and strategy, especially when other nations come to part and it becomes global foreign policy, is a complicated issue. I knew this even before I began to major in political science and take classes discussing this issue. For me, I have not made up my mind on where I stand on political issues except for perhaps social issues relative to my country. But even then I am not sure about them. The problem is that we can never have enough information to be able to predict a viable outcome of any of our said choices and in that sense no matter what choice of action we choose, we are gambling. We are taking a risk with people's lives either way.
War and Profit
One interesting thing that occurred in my political science class a couple of weeks ago was that there were two pie charts shown, one on global gross domestic product revenue and one on the global spending of country's military budget. Here are the charts:
25srbx4.png
The point that the teacher was trying to make by referencing this was "Look how much income the United States makes and look where we spend it poorly compared to the rest of the world". Everyone who spoke aloud agreed with her. However when I was personally looking at the graphs it made me wonder if somehow the numbers were correlated. Could the massive amount of money we pour into military defense actually account for why our GDP is so high? One thing I've always known about war is that while it is expensive, it is also profitable. According to a report done by "The Economist" in 2010, The United States Defense is the world's #1 non-corporate employer of people with more than 3 million people employed.
What Should Be Done?
Really, how do we determine what should be done over this sort of issue? Obviously we have concerns as our own country, but are there other factors which must be considered? I personally think of it as rather self-centered that when making a decision there's no consensus or thought on what others would like us to do. The reality is that whatever we do is going to create a "global climate" so to speak. If enough countries oppose what we do there could be backlash. If enough countries support us, there might be voices which are silenced, rational voices of protest that cease to be heard because all of the superpower of the world have decided one nation should not be allowed to have a certain weapon system.​
The World Perception of The United States
Many of you have probably already read my blog, so you know this story. I will repeat it again to those who do not know it. The Sundance Film Festival was a couple of weeks ago and being a Utah local I always attend. This year I went to see a film by a Swedish filmmaker called "Big Boys Gone Bananas" about how the Dole food company, an American brand, attempted to shut down an entire film festival so the film "Bananas" about abuses of the company in South America wouldn't be shown. It demonstrated to me that American News Reporting is highly ineffective- Dole 'planted' several articles into newspapers such as The New York Times by paying well-known professors from Universities and journalists money to say what they wanted them to say. As I looked on the "Freedom of Press Index", a index put together by "Doctors with No Borders", I found that U.S.A. surprisingly was #22 on a list of about #200 countries, #1 being the freest presses and #200-something being the lowest. I began to read newspapers that were from out of the country, from the places ranked with the highest freedom of press index, which happened to be most of Scandinavia, including Sweden where the filmmaker of both "Bananas" and "Big Boys Gone Bananas" is from. As I read global news on these websites which I've translated with "google translate" there are always comments on the stories that have to do with the United States. For the short period of time I've been reading them (weeks), all of countries I've read articles from have comments from readers which paint a negative tone. It seems from what little I have to go on that the world perception of the United States is that this country thinks they are the "global police" when they are not. I have read people express opinions that "USA should stop poking their nose in other country's business" even...."Let Iran have their weapons, why is the USA the decider". I was at first surprised by these comments- I knew there were negative thoughts about the USA and our reputation but I didn't know there were countries so venomously against it. When the situation in Libya first played out, the USA was one of the first countries almost "elected" to sort things out by other nations with their support. But these are the voices of countries that are not superpowers, these are the voices of countries that could likely become victims of these weapons because they own none of their own, who are speaking out and saying, "Yes, just let them have their weapons". From my own experience, I'd say that countries like Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and Switzerland- at least their citizens- do not want the USA interfering overseas anymore.​
Considering the United States of America Consensus
Whether Americans agree or not with the idea of entering another country, or working with other countries in order to stop Iran is...complicated as well. There are so many political parties and people to deal with. I could cite a media poll about it- there are many, but what concerns me is that they would not be accurate. As I've said before I am suspicious of the American News Corporations...they have all been bough by giant companies which own the steel which is used to build weapons and the factories that build the military cars. They have an invested interest in pushing Americans to believe war or interfering with other countries is the best thing to do. The amazing thing is that we can go into countries like Iraq, bomb them until there is massive destruction, re-instate a government that we "like" and tell the governed that we put there that, "Well, we'll rebuild everything we destroyed for a price. If you pay us X amount we'll send people over to rebuild everything that we blew up." It amazes me that this is something that is O.K. to do. However, I do sort of suspect that our strong economy has something to do with entering into so many other countries businesses, going to war with them or just destroying them. It's profitable, so in that sense, it is surely something that the media sources you consume WANT you to support. Everyone knows war can happen without the people's consent, but it is more difficult. Even television shows like "What Would You do" by ABC I believe it is, support the notion that we should interfere when we see something "bad" going on rather than let it run it's course. Our culture is dependent on the idea that we must save everyone from their problems. Why is Superman one of the most recognized comic book characters? He's a hero. He saves people. This is the image we paint of our military soldiers- we don't say the young men and women we sent to war or overseas are rapists, killers and torturers. We say they are heros, protecting liberty of our own and other people's. This is not true in my opinion. But these men and women could be considered heroes in another light: they are making us money. They are financial heroes.

Conclusion

So what, then, what am I suggesting? We should act or we shouldn't? I don't have enough information about the situation or the world to determine that for anyone. I am inclined to protest any war- I don't think it's a good thing because of the damage to a whole society and culture of people it can have. We already have natural disasters to destroy cities, split apart families and kill people. We do not need a man-made natural disaster: that is what we call war. But this of course is only my opinion and I could be totally wrong. Perhaps war is necessary to liberate people, to keep away unfair governments. Perhaps war is the "lesser evil". War to stop war- is this fighting with fire? Are we naturally inclined to war? Could mankind ever live in peace? Questions that probably will never be answered. In short, my answer is that I do not know what my own opinion is. But I do know that war is profitable. If you would like to make money, this would be a good option to go for.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
What has sharia law got to do with the US wanting to get to the oil under Iran?

If the US is after the oil under Iran, why did Obama just refuse to build the pipeline and pipe in oil from Canada right at our door?????
...could have created income and tens of thousands of jobs. I remember why now: he is still working on the budget that was due over 1,000 days ago. You can't see what I see?
 
If the US is after the oil under Iran, why did Obama just refuse to build the pipeline and pipe in oil from Canada right at our door?????
...could have created income and tens of thousands of jobs. I remember why now: he is still working on the budget that was due over 1,000 days ago. You can't see what I see?

Because he is playing a game of geopolitical chess where he wants to control the worlds oil reserves. He not only wants oil for the US he wants to stop anyone else having it.

I've already explained the following:

Oil is currently traded widely in dollars, but other countries are now trading in other currencies. Iraq wanted to trade in euros so it was invaded, Libya was going to start trading in another currency so it was invaded, Venezuala is exchanging oil in a sort of barter system so it is demonised by the US, Iran is joining with other countries to trade in other currencies (india is buying oil using gold) so the US is now threatening to invade Iran

The US economy is already struggling, so to lose its status as the worlds reserve currency is going to have drastic effects.This is going to happen however whether the US likes it or not. So they would be best to avoid making enemies as they decline in power.

Further to this there is a group in the US which is so powerful that it is more than a 'lobby' it is part of the system itself and that is the 'military industrial complex'

The military industrial complex will always argue that war is the best option because the people behind this group will profit from war. You and the rest of the public will not profit however. It will cost you your taxpayers dollars and it will cost members of the public their lives.

So i am arguing that the US people need to reshape their economy around renewables instead of weapons. This requires wrestling control off the elites who currently run your country. It also means saying no to war as the default setting for the US
 
Conclusion

So what, then, what am I suggesting? We should act or we shouldn't? I don't have enough information about the situation or the world to determine that for anyone. I am inclined to protest any war- I don't think it's a good thing because of the damage to a whole society and culture of people it can have. We already have natural disasters to destroy cities, split apart families and kill people. We do not need a man-made natural disaster: that is what we call war. But this of course is only my opinion and I could be totally wrong. Perhaps war is necessary to liberate people, to keep away unfair governments. Perhaps war is the "lesser evil". War to stop war- is this fighting with fire? Are we naturally inclined to war? Could mankind ever live in peace? Questions that probably will never be answered. In short, my answer is that I do not know what my own opinion is. But I do know that war is profitable. If you would like to make money, this would be a good option to go for.​

Some interesting points here Slant

Yes you are right that the perception of the US around the world is that it is a bully

By 'US' i do of course mean the government not the people, who i believe are largely ignorant of many of the realities

Concerning whether or not war is profitable for the US.

I believe that it is profitable for the 1% who own the corporations and the bankers that finance them but i don't believe it is profitable for the US public and you only have to look at the US national debt to see this

The US depegged from the gold standard and has been printing money ever since. It has used this money to make weapons and enrich the 1% whilst indebting the public and killing thousands of US soldiers, not to mention the victims abroad of US foriegn policy with for example 1 MILLION people killed so far in Iraq, most of which are civilians, men, women and children.

Also the US has been overthrowing democratically elected leaders, sometimes assassinating them and installing their puppets such as MUbarak in Egypt who have made themselves extremely rich as part of the bargain (he has a $40 Billion private fortune while many Egyptian are starving; food is over 40% of income). This has made them detested by people around the world who have no illusions about who is to blame for the neoliberal policies that have wreaked economic havoc on their countries and often conflict as well.

The US public need to ask themselves has this war trend helped their economy and do they believe that it is morally defensible? I would answer NO to both these questions