Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Iran sanctions now causing food insecurity, mass suffering

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 11, 2012, 7:53 p.m. EST by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Yet again, the US and its allies spread mass human misery though a policy that is as morally indefensible as it is counter-productive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering?newsfeed=true Drone terrorism

Pakistan's most popular politician, Imran Khan, was joined yesterday by 32 brave Americans in an anti-drone march to Waziristan, at which Khan said: "The war on terror has become a war of terror." Khan also vowed that if elected Prime Minister, he would shoot down US drones that invaded Pakistani air space. To see why the US drone campaign is appropriately deemed one of terror, see this excellent analysis from Digby.

UPDATE

I have one other question: if "terrorism" means the use of violence aimed at civilians in order to induce political change from their government, what is it called when intense economic suffering is imposed on a civilian population in order to induce political change from their government? Can those two tactics be morally distinguished?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/world/middleeast/irans-nobel-laureate-concerned-about-sanctions.html?_r=0

Iranian Dissident Opposes Sanctions on Tehran By RICK GLADSTONE Published: April 13, 2012 FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ E-MAIL SHARE PRINT REPRINTS

Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has no affinity for the authorities in Iran, who she fears would have her arrested or worse if she returned home. But she has found herself standing with them in opposition to the onerous nuclear sanctions imposed on her country. Enlarge This Image

Ben Garvin for The New York Times Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Shirin Ebadi. Multimedia

Interactive Feature Iran, the United States and a Nuclear Seesaw Related Seeking Nuclear Insight in Fog of the Ayatollah’s Utterances (April 14, 2012) As Nuclear Talks With Iran Restart, New Hopes for Deal (April 14, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines. Twitter List: Reporters and Editors As representatives of Iran and six world powers prepared to resume negotiations on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities this weekend in Istanbul, Ms. Ebadi said that the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union were misdirected.

Although meant to pressure the Iranian government to compromise on its nuclear program, “the very stringent sanctions have really been a tremendous blow to people,” Ms. Ebadi said in a telephone interview. “The people need these sanctions to be removed for a sustainable life.”

The sanctions have contributed to acute shortages of foreign goods there, rising inflation and unemployment and a sharply devalued currency. Further deprivations loom, especially if a European Union ban on Iranian oil sales goes ahead as planned in less than three months.

In response to the sanctions, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been defiant, asserting that Iran will never stop enriching uranium in response to foreign demands. At the same time, he insists that Iran will never use its uranium stockpile to develop nuclear weapons, despite Western suspicions to the contrary. As for the economic pain in Iran caused by the sanctions, the ayatollah has said Iranians should take it as an opportunity to become more self-reliant and wean themselves off foreign goods.

Ms. Ebadi, 64, who was attending a conference in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday, asserted that the Iranian government was not correct in saying that its nuclear energy program was popular among Iranians. While Iranians across the political spectrum say Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear energy, Ms. Ebadi said, many people are privately worried about the environmental risks of nuclear reactors, particularly in Iran’s earthquake zones. She said there was no public discussion about this issue because the government had banned newspapers from reporting anything but the official position in recent years.

As for the nuclear negotiations, which were resumed after more than a year, Ms. Ebadi was not optimistic. “I hope the talks in Istanbul are fruitful, but the previous experiences proved that Iran was just buying time,” she said.

Ms. Ebadi’s opposition to the sanctions has not diminished the mutual antagonism between her and the Iranian government, which considers her one of the more annoying critical voices it cannot silence. She left Iran before the disputed 2009 election and ensuing crackdown on antigovernment protests, and has often spoken out about the repression of dissidents, women, religious minorities and others deemed a threat to the conservative Islamic establishment.

She became the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in 2003, for her work in advancing the rights of women in Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. A judge by training before Islamic clerics took control, she was stripped of that title because they deemed women unfit to be judges, and she was made a secretary in her own court. She quit.

Ms. Ebadi then developed her own law practice, representing dissidents and victims of child abuse, and later founded the Human Rights Defenders Center in Iran. Six years after she won the Nobel Peace Prize, the government confiscated her medal and bank accounts, accusing her of evading taxes on the award money and forcing her into exile. The medal was later returned.

She now spends most of her time traveling, attending conferences and lectures and discussing her books about Iran, “The Golden Cage” and “Iran Awakening.” She said she had often received death threats that she attributes to Iranian government harassment.

“They only are doing this to scare me,” she said. “They’ve always said they would come after me and kill me.

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Spreading death and destruction is what D/R is put in there to do.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Another reason why we need a revolutionary party with competent leaders and a program. To push the duopoly off the stage and replace them.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

We mainly need competent voters that research candidates. Why don't most people know who Jill Stein is? Or just any good person in general from previous elections? Like Dennis Kucinich in 2004 instead of John Kerry? Because they aren't funded by the 1% to pay for their tv ad space and get them on the news.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

As long as most of the 99 percent are complacent arrogant and ignorant things will be as they are and worse. I had had great hopes for OWS but they seemed to have been determined not to consolidate the mass support and approval they had for a while by not presenting an articulate and vigorous set of demands.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

OWS was very articulate and actually proposed a full set of demands which was read on new stations within the first 30 days. The demands never changed. The media just kept telling people "But what do they want?" and when said enough times the masses thought OWS was aimless even though the demands never changed and were quite clear.

OWS has dwindled. And I blame the hardcore media attacks and police brutality that scared people away from joining.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Where are those demands? When were they last put forward here or in other OWS media? I agree that the vicious unlawful police brutality did a lot to scare people off. That was a time strategically to go for permitted demos raising these demands, postering campaigns (I've never seen an OWS poster on any wall and I drive all around the streets of NYC six nights a week), other ways to get the word out. And we have to agree that the police and their actions are issues that must be raised and stop this nonsense of calling these thugs part of the 99 percent. Anyhow those are my two cents.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Here's Keith Olberman reading the "proclamation" on his show

It was very clear. Media bias and corporate interests quickly spun OWS after they were gaining popularity.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

A lovely proclamation with no specific demand such as " a minimum wage of ten dollars an hour tied to the rate of inflation."

"We offer" nothing to those whose right to vote is being trampled because we don't believe in voting so sorry black folks, MLK was wrong on that." (OH, and how can we reach out to black people?)

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You're being a little ridiculous if you think that was not specific in anyway.

Sure a dollar amount would have been nice.... but the message is specific about the problems in this country.

How does OWS not reach out to black people? I had no idea OWS has been an exclusively white movement.

Where did it say they don't believe in voting?

It says the system has been corrupted by economic power and private interests.

They also pointed out that discrimination is WRONG

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

It must be they don't believe in voting. they haven't said one damned single thing about the current suppression of black voters. They have demonstrated over supposed voter fraud in Russia, but about such a matter here? Concerning black people? No way, Jack.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I think the demands were much too varied and a bit too radical to actually garner big time support. They didn't actually represent how 99% of America actually feels or their values.

A very narrow, focused goal (to start at least) that nearly all Americans can agree with would have been much more successful. Getting the money out of politics is one such goal that is obvious.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Protest the damn sanctions as well.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Agreed. OWS would be a good platform for such protests if their "foreign policy" non leading leaders (or leading non leaders) aren't completely co opted by the State Department.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4650) 1 year ago

Good Post

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

That's what sanctions do. Just look at what the sanctions did to the civilians of Iraq in the 90's.

Estimates of excess deaths of children during the sanctions vary widely, but range from a minimum of 100,000 to over 500,000 children.

And this is just children. Estimates go all the way up to 1.7 million deaths total.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

There was a menu of sanctions directed at the finances of certain leaders of Iran that could have been pursued and would have not done such horrible damage to the average and poor Iranians. These options were tossed out. IMHO Iran is not violating any international law and is as even Joseph Biden says not close to having a nuclear weapon. The religious leadership of Iran insists that they would never pursue a nuclear weapon on religious grounds. There is no evidence that they are doing so. Could it be that the real agenda is simply regime change in order to thwart Iran's effort to break out of dollar domination? Anyhow these sanctions are unifying the Iranian people around their PTB which of course deprives OWS non leaders of someone to root for. I don't doubt that the sanctions and their horrors are going to be remembered and retold over generations of Iranians and arrogant/willfully ignorant Americans will ask themselves why "those people" hate "us" so much.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

HR 4310

Dennis Kucinich speaks out against section 1221 and 1222 of HR 4310

"THIS BILL PREPARES FOR WAR"

(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

Section 1222

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, steps necessary for the Armed Forces to support the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b), including--

(A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

(C) discussing the viability of deploying at least two United States aircraft carriers, an additional large deck amphibious ship, and a Mine Countermeasures Squadron in the region on a continual basis, in support of the actions described in subparagraph (B); and

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet's major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Kucinich serves a double edged purpose. He brings out some truths and makes statements that progressives can cite and rally around. Also he serves as a model of sorts for the typpe of democrat that is not going to be voted in under our present rules of engagement.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

US and Israel Recognize Iran Not Near a Bomb
Friday, 12 October 2012 11:55 By Paul Jay and Gareth Porter, The Real News Network | Interview and Video http://truth-out.org/news/item/12087-us-and-israel-recognize-iran-not-near-a-bomb

In spite evidence Iran directing much of its supply of 20 percent enriched uranium for scientific purposes, "killer" sanctions continue.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Biden pretty much said the same thing. To me this makes the sanctions more reprehensible.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-iran-nuclear/index.html

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (1860) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

Destruction,homelessness,lack of medical care,chaos,death,economic collapse,death squads,environmental collapse,lack of opportunity,illiteracy,persecution of minorities,infant mortality,maternal morbidity and mortality,income inequality,spiking commodity prices caused by unscrupulous speculative traders,unemployment,unsafe food,housing and water,high suicide and mental illness rates-all of these ills and many more we have exported to other countries.Now all of these things are coming back to us like a barrage of killer boomerangs.And if we had exported good things,good things would be returning to us.Quel dommage...

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

This bad stuff of course comes back to hit the powerless and the deluded and not the true malefactors. Too bad on that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Reap what is sown. Simple yet profound.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago
  • R - "Blow em up!!"
  • D - "Easy, we are starving them into a corner. Its going to take time"
  • R - "Blow em up!!"
  • D - "What do think we are going to do after we have forced them to get aggressive?!"
  • R - "You are Weak!!""
  • D - "You are Stupid. Be Smart"
[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You've summed it up well. If the D's win we buy a little more time but absolutely they cannot be expected to do what's right without a major fire under their asses.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

gasoline is up

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

That would be the least of it and of course that most hurts those who have no say and so are brain addled with TV, drugs, fast food, Fox, etc. that they can almost be forgiven for what they endorse.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

Copying and pasting articles about the "tragedies" of drone bombings and sanctions do not make you an expert.

The reality of everything is way more complicated than anyone on here wants to admit.

Drones are not the issue here. They are a tool, just as a regular fighter jet is. Drones just keep our pilots out of harms way. That is it.

They are a cheaper, simplier, safer means for the military to bomb targets. Protesting at drone use is pointless. Their operators are still pilots, go through pilot training, flight physicals etc. They Act in the same way a fighter pilot does, except from a distance. Don't assume that an unmanned drone is controlled by some crazy Artificial Intelligent computer that shows no compassion or able to distinguish targets. They don't.

Protesting drones is like protesting the military using guns or gunpowder. They will never stop. Why not focus on the horrible economic crisis in our own country. Help change the tide of politics within, so when we have power over government, we can change our foreign policy.

We need to increase our focus in areas that matter most to our country.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Like bombing villages in Pakistan and other countries by whatever means. I think the drones strike a nerve in many people, especially in the target countries for the image of cowardice they project. At least John McCain had to risk his neck while murdering from the air. While not quite presenting a "fair fight" you couldn't simply dismiss him and the country that produced him as totally cowardly.

[-] 2 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

Fair fight? Bombing a rural mud village with a multi-million dollar supersonic jet fighter is a fair fight? It isn't. At very least drones keep our troops safe. That should be #1 above all else. #2 it costs significantly less to fly drones than fighter jets, so that cuts expenditures and money needed on defense.

Also they do not make our country look cowardly. If anything they strike fear in that area of the world. Knowing you can get bombed at any time from something you can't see. If they want to test American cowardice, let them walk a few miles into Afghanistan and see some of our boys over there.

Those targets are getting bombed regardless how we do it.

The drone is a tool. You blame the hammer or the person swinging it? You blame the fork for making a person fat? No, you wouldn't.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Just talking about the image of a remote control bomber as opposed to one who takes at least some risk while doing his crimes. I think this aspect has increased the rage in places like Pakistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/30/deadly-drones-us-cowards-war

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

I understand your point. If the end result is the same, wouldn't we rather decrease the chance of death by sending drones instead of our own citizens into harms way?

Also, if anyone in Pakistan thinks we are cowards...who cares? Yes we bomb alleged terrorist targets but we also give them billions in monetary and logistical support. Let them think we are cowards while they take our money willingly.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Actually given that they are committing murder, the answer to your first question is "no." Among the consequences of this dronery is that the US can take further risks and more extreme actions knowing that the precious pilot is safe.

And in places like Pakistan and Yemen the ones taking "our" money are not the ones getting bombed and strafed.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

True those getting bombs aren't getting the money. But those getting the money are allowing us to bomb them. So really what is the problem here? The drones...or those in power that choose to use such tools.

To me, the tool isn't the problem. It is those that control them. It is the people paying Pakistan to allow us to bomb them.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes. The drone strategy allows for more bombing as it protects the pilots who represent a big cash investment in training. It also allows for bulloney lying to the effect that the attacks are ohh so precise and pinpoint and do not hurt even one hair on the head of any innocent child.

[-] -2 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

No, I disagree totally. We wouldn't bomb them less. We never NOT bombed a target due to losing pilots etc. It is combat, it is inherently dangerous, that is what they are trained for. if a target needs to be bombed, it will. It just costs less and is safer to Americans to use drones.

Also the weapons on the drones are the same ones used on other combat aircraft. They aren't different.

I don't think the government ever claimed they don't harm anyone. They claim they try to minimize civilian causality and they even say that it happens. The weapons are pretty damn accurate. They can hit 1 small building from miles away, whereas old "dummy bombs" could completely miss. Yes mistakes still happen and sometimes they miss but overall it is pretty amazing technology designed to only hit the intended target.

Moreover, the military does not target civilians. Sorry. Sometimes civilians are collateral damage and the military assess the collateral damage by the worth of the intended target.

Eliminating the drone strategy would not stop the bombings. The drone strategy however deflates the military budget by offering more cost effective measures of raining death.

So once again, don't fight the tools, fight those that control them. You should be protesting the orders to bomb Pakistan by the powers that be, and not the drones, drone pilots, drone bases, or drone parts factories. Everyone further down the line than those that make the decisions are just trying to do their job whether you agree with it or not.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I seem to recall and am reminded daily by the renaming of streets and highways of a cult of the POW. Thugs who were shot down over Vietnam while committing genocide.

I did two years in the US Army myself. We were tught that being taken prisoner of war was a disgrace. POWS are denied the privilege of giving and taking salutes. The traumatizing effect of losses such as of a third of these thugs were encapuslated s "the lessons of Vietnam." Now these lessons are not relevant. "We" just go about the business of bombing and strafing with s you say "minimum loss of human life" and no loss of American lives.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

Yea exactly my point. They will bomb targets when they need to, regardless if it is a human or drone.

I don't know how long ago you served but it is certainly not taught in recent years that it is a disgrace to be a POW. The cult of the POW? Streets and highways get named in honor of those that died while serving not just POW.

I can't believe that you served and would call anyone else that served under combat conditions "thugs", especially pilots. There is a difference between bombing a target from thousands of feet up and massacring civilians in a village on the ground.

As someone who as served, then you should understand that they will attempt to achieve a successful missions regardless of what tools they use. If they want to bomb somewhere, I'd rather they use drones than put my anymore of my or your buddies or familty on the front line in harms way.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Well, I do call them "thugs" and this "service" tht I did was not my proudest moment.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

I don't know under what conditions you served, so I will not comment on that. It may not have been your proudest moment or something you regret.

However, disrespecting and name calling those that did serve in times of war is wrong to me. You should know then that things are not clear cut, black and white, easily discernible. Maybe things happened you don't agree with, but there are several sides to every story and you can't possibly know all of them.

This is my point. It is easy to criticize something you don't fully understand or are knowledgeable about. ie- Drone bombings. Yes, innocent civilians get killed, but that is just 1 aspect of 1 side of the story. Something as complicated as war, where there is a lot of gray area, how can any justifiably say anything. Drones are a tool, just like a rifle. Don't get mad at inanimate objects or the poor guy on the assembly line screwing pieces together. Get mad, get active against the main cause of the bombings. Politicians.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Maybe it was wrong but a landmark decision was made at the end of WW2 in a place called Nuremberg. Maybe it shouldn't have been made retroactive but it was, Maybe it wasn't applied fairly too but the decision supposedly has the force of international law.

http://tinyurl.com/9yh8t6f

Personally I didn't kill anyone, was not really in serious danger except for a few brief incidents. I was a cog in the genocide wheel. Perhaps for this I am bound for hell.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

ain't condoning no drone pilot or builder

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I do not believe that easing our worries about our men and women in the battle zone is a good thing at all - as it just removes pressure from ending the atrocity known as war.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

I guess you haven't been, or don't know anyone in the war? Or lost friends/family to war?

War will always happen because it is not up to us. It is up to a very small group of people. Humans have always been at war, for thousands of years. That will never change. Being able to conduct war in such a way that is safer for people that would be normally thrown in harms way is a blessing.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The safer you make war for one side ( in this instance the USA ) the more detached you can be for what happens ( as it is the other guy who is catching hell ) - this includes civilian deaths. It does not in anyway provide pressure ( in this case for us - the USA ) to find a peaceable end to the conflict.

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

Your right it does not take off pressure. Though think about it. The powers at be will go to war. They have everytime, in much greater conflicts that caused loss of life. Do you think they care about how many men they send to their deaths?

The ones that cause war are already detached from it. If they rather send a drone in, instead of a body...what is wrong with that? The guy flying or sleeping in the fox hole isn't making the decisions. It is the guys thousands of miles away in Washington.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The public should care - and when you have war being waged by satellite electronically controlled drones - you have removed the concern for safety of one half of the population of the conflicting forces. People tend to get involved when they have a reason to - no danger to sons and daughters? = much less concern about the whole conflict.

[-] 0 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

Well the object of war is to win. If I am fighting or being forced to fight an enemy from another nation, why would I want him to win? Why would I NOT want to be safer than he is? You don't fight in wars to lose. Giving ourselves the advantage is good for those sent to fight and die.

Your arguing against the tools and technology used in conflict. Tools have no emotions or morals, or ethics.

You should be arguing the reasons we go to war and those that send us to war.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The object should be no war.

So one of the things I advocate is the end of the need for fossil fuel. Major cause of armed conflict.

[-] 0 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

No war would be great. I am just taking a realistic approach. As long as humans existed there has been war.

Before Drones Before Guns Before fossil fuels Before Missiles and bombs

Humans have fought over patches of dirt with nothing more than rocks and sticks for centuries.

You also forget such a small percentage of the world go to war like we do. Conflicts rage constantly that do not involve the United States and our advanced technology.

Ending all war would be amazing, but unfortunately war is human nature.

We are always at war.

until the day comes when the entire world can somehow throw away thousands of years of human nature and cause a serious end to world conflict...I'll be in the bunker flying the drones.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You need to pay attention to what you say:

until the day comes when the entire world can somehow throw away thousands of years of human nature and cause a serious end to world conflict...I'll be in the bunker flying the drones.

You basically state that you are not gonna make an effort to change the current state of affairs but will huddle off to the side supporting the status-quo and whatever it decides to do.

Think about this for more then a nano second: If you are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem.


[-] 1 points by Jencats (5) 0 minutes ago

No I never said I like flying drones over peace. I prefer peace. Realistically we will always be at war during my lifetime. If I have to continue fighting wars, costly awful wars, then I'd myself and my friends be as safe as possible.

Peace is very important but to understand how to create peace you have to understand the problem. if you can't accept humans are inherently violent then how would you go about solving a problem you don't understand?

You can't solve an equation without knowing the formula. Or overcome and addition before knowing what your addicted to.

Logic. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH please - go back to your cave and huddle round your solitary fire.

Of course it will not happen by magic - it will happen ( if at all ) by work - like I said - WORK - and the proper use of technology that is available.

But apparently you like flying drones instead of making an effort at real peace.


[-] 1 points by Jencats (5) 5 minutes ago

If war was not human nature we would not have been at war as long as we existed. We are animals, animals fight. Look at the animal kingdom, fundamentally we are no different. We fight over territory, resources, mates.

War is also just not been "the way to go". What about ancient gladiators and feat of strength performed for roaring crowds? What about our current MMA and boxing arenas? Those are just controlled violence for our amusement. We enjoy it because humans are inherently violent.

We have always had the technology to end war. The ability to communicate and reason. Technology is not the answer to ending wars. If we REALLY wanted to end war, we could have thousands of years ago.

Peace has always been suggested. Ending wars is not a new notion. IF WWII didn't stop future wars, then nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will. A people's ability to make war is power. People want power. Survival of the fittest. You have what I need, you don't want to share. I need it to survive, then I want to take it and make you share. My people NEED to survive. My people WANT your oil. Survival of the fittest.

i am all for promoting health and prosperity. I am also really into looking at things in a realistic way. If I HAVE to go to war, I'd like to be as safe as possible. Peace is better than war, but to think war will just be wiped out magically is just plain wrong. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by Jencats (20) 1 year ago

No I never said I like flying drones over peace. I prefer peace. Realistically we will always be at war during my lifetime. If I have to continue fighting wars, costly awful wars, then I'd myself and my friends be as safe as possible.

Peace is very important but to understand how to create peace you have to understand the problem. if you can't accept humans are inherently violent then how would you go about solving a problem you don't understand?

You can't solve an equation without knowing the formula. Or overcome and addition before knowing what your addicted to.

Logic.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

As long as humans have existed there have been conflicts over resources. Human resources as well as material resources.

Yes all the way back to bare hands and teeth.

Yes a continuation of your opening statement.

Yes conflicts rage around the world - so? Still the same causes.

War is not human nature - wants and needs are human nature - war has just been the way some go about getting what they want and/or need.

We are currently ( Humanity ) at war - because no one has addressed making war obsolete and exported/shared it as of yet.

We now have the technology - we ( The People ) just need to demand that it is implemented and shared. I pity you and your kind flying drones instead of promoting health prosperity and peace for all.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

doom

[-] 0 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

So the Obama approved sanctions are starving the Iranians?

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes, it's criminal. Problem is the other side is bellyaching that it isn't enough! Biden caught them out on that but you know, no one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. I'm hoping that if Obama beats Romney after the inaugural there might possibly be a rational re think on this Iran matter. That's much less likely to happen with Sheldon Adelson riding high.

[-] -1 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

You are deluded. Expecting rational thinking out of Obama? He hasn't shown any rational thinking for the last 4 years.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

By all means continue with your support of the Romney/Adelson ticket. I'm sure one day the Palestinians and the Iranians will thank you for that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

they would thank the american people to take control of the US government

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

That would be the best thing with no doubt (on the condition that the american people be required to read actual newspapers). In a few weeks though someone is going to win an election and my moral choice is to go with the black guy and not the mormon.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I won't vote for either

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

IMHO that amounts to a vote for the mormon. I think the election this time is unique and important and among other things it's a test for the american people- go with the black guy or with the lying racist mormon?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The press has a way of making every election "the most important"...a couple of older guys I know say they must have heard that bullshit at least 5 times.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Well to my recollection there hasn't ever been a coalition led by a member of a devious racist cult and funded in large measure by a zionist extremist gangster (Adelson) out to oust the first black president of the united states by hook or by crook. I could be wrong but I think it's not only a first but it's damned important.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Probably well intentioned people but a bit crazy doing the same failed thing over and over. Me, this is my first vote for the lesser evil ever. The last time I voted in a presidential race was 1968 when I wrote in Eldridge Cleaver. Such a gesture would be of no avail now as it was of no avail then. If we get the lying racist mormon and a tea party congress we are certainly in for some shock and awe and it will hurt the 47% most of all.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I'm not voting for Obama

his foreign policy consists of murder

I will never support that

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

We could go round and round forever Matt. I'd rather not as it gets to a point where everything has been said. I wish you the best in life and may Ms. Stein win the election.