myk
volveré y seré millones
Posts: 14422
Registered: 04-02 |
dew said:
these trends grow and culminate over decades, yet somehow the us government manipulates the whole world to distract from the OWS?
There's reasons why they escalate at certain points. OWS is just a symptom in a broad economic crisis. It wouldn't be the first time governments turn to military action when fiscal numbers don't add up, to try to make up for what's missing nationally somewhere else, fortify "internal security" and paralyze dissent.
only if you believe iran's claim that the large amounts of uranium-235 enriched to 20% are produced for medical purposes (radiology). the consensus of experts on nuclear energy is that this outlandish claim is a thin excuse for enriching u-235 to weapon grade density at 90%. keep in mind that going from 3.5% (nuclear plant fuel) to 20% is the hardest step, proceeding further is relatively easy. this evidence alone is damning enough and iran is not even denying it.
I hope this "consensus of experts" isn't similar to the experts that have a consensus about economic policy in Europe!
Whether Iran will develop nukes really depends on a lot of factors, including how much its sovereignty and future is threatened, how much other options become inviable. Believing they will do it no matter what, eliminating the context of what's going on is as close to racist as it gets, putting them into that stereotype where they're eager to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."
i'm not aware of any IAEA reports claiming saddam developed nukes. his atomic activities were cut short when israel air raided osirak. btw, the first country that tried to bomb the nuclear plant was iran. :) IAEA's role in dubya's invasion of iraq is sadly misunderstood. they were assisting in the UNMOVIC probe in 2002 and found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but dubya, dick cheney and collin powell knowingly lied about fictious chemical weapons mobile laboratories, had an untrustworthy witness testify and the invasion was greenlighted by the coalition of the willing.
But back then the key members of the European Union weren't really into moving aggressively into the Middle east, actively running over the countries that aren't subservient to the West. Europe was mostly shocked at what the US did unilaterally. So the US lied when they did it alone... Now we're supposed to believe that Europeans who joined in under their military master won't also exacerbate potentials or use fabricated intelligence in this quest for supremacy over the Middle East, which is in a key central location of the world, and its oil?
Quast said:
Seriously, try not to wax poetic about primitive societies too much. They lived very brutal and unforgiving lives.
Not to buy into the "noble savage in Eden" myth, but that probably depends a lot on the times and places. Just like in modern and contemporary society, where you find places that you can live well and others that are hell. I'm guessing large percentages of the past population lived relatively alright. Since the official "history" in ancient, medieval and even later times mostly consisted of chronicles of kings conquering lands, I'm not sure we get a good picture or general impression of how it was for most people in the past.
Like, in the Americas, there were invasions and empires and all in their time, but they seemed to live relatively well for long periods of time in various areas. When Europeans arrived, in addition to violence, they brought plagues and diseases in their filthy ships and from their shit-stained streets and rat infested buildings that wiped out large numbers of natives. Different cultures must have had periods of relative adaptation and peace, broken intermittently but crises from climate changes or migrations and other catastrophes.
|
11-18-11 22:04 
