In the SST forum, users are free to discuss philosophy, music, art, religion, sock colour, whatever. It's a haven from the madness of Bulldrek; alternately intellectual and mundane, this is where the controversy takes place.
A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that Iran was behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen, clearing the way for more than 600 of their relatives to collect financial damages against the Islamic republic.
Theres not much in the way of official reaction here. Perosnally knowing several people who died and a few that lived through this event this kind of raises my hackles.
I also noted this in the Reuters article:
In 1997 a German court ruled Iran's political leadership had ordered the killings of four Iranian Kurdish dissidents in Berlin's Mykonos restaurant in 1992.
And not ot be a prick, cause I know you meant it to be humorous, and you are feelin' under the weather (Get better soon), but do you think a sovereign nation can be held responsible for sponsoring global terrorism?
What would you say to the families of the fallen if you were the state?
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
So I sue Iran.... And Iran says "Fuck you". The court rules in my favor. Big deal. How do I get enforcment of the ruling? It's not like the US can garnish Iran's paycheck or anything.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Well IIRC, it means at least that they can sue for and claim against any financial assets the Iranian government might have in the US- which probably amounts to diddly anway, but.
The 86 Rules of Boozing
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
Serious Paul wrote:And not ot be a prick, cause I know you meant it to be humorous, and you are feelin' under the weather (Get better soon), but do you think a sovereign nation can be held responsible for sponsoring global terrorism?
What would you say to the families of the fallen if you were the state?
*shrug* We've known it for some time, now. One of my objections to an attack on Iraq was because we knew Iran is supporting Al Qaeda. Why we took out a guy who wasn't a threat, when we could have taken on either Iran or Syria-- who are threats-- is beyond me, unless you factor in the fact Iraq has more oil.
It's not that Iran doesn't need to be penalized for what they're done, it's now a question of where we'll stop. One of my predictions way back when was that this would be the start of a domino effect. The Bush administration is clearly moving to take over the Middle East, if we try and attack Iran right now.
Ok, last clear headed moment for a while. Painkillers were just taken, so I can't really go into it for very long.
Cain wrote:*shrug* We've known it for some time, now.[/quote
Well theres some debate as the veracity of that statement, but thats a sidetrack...
One of my objections to an attack on Iraq was because we knew Iran is supporting Al Qaeda. Why we took out a guy who wasn't a threat, when we could have taken on either Iran or Syria-- who are threats-- is beyond me, unless you factor in the fact Iraq has more oil.
Or that Iraq was a more immediate threat. Or that the US lacked/lacks evidence to carry out/under take operations int his area. Or that this operation may entail a lot more leg work. Oil could be a reason, I doubt its the only one or even a prime one.
It's not that Iran doesn't need to be penalized for what they're done, it's now a question of where we'll stop. One of my predictions way back when was that this would be the start of a domino effect. The Bush administration is clearly moving to take over the Middle East, if we try and attack Iran right now.
I have a hard time seeing that being possible, or even desirable. The price of cheap oil isn't worht that hassle. Bush may simply have believed he was right in Iraq and have no political desire to fight a war in Iran. Hard to believe I know.
Of course I personally believe a little bit of war is a good thing,and a lot is a great thing.
Ok, last clear headed moment for a while. Painkillers were just taken, so I can't really go into it for very long.
I notice you mentioning this very frequently of late, are they bothering you that much? Maybe you should rest you junkie!
I think the major issue with Iran right now is Russia is assisting Iran in building a nuclear power plant. They have invited the US to take part in the project but the US is against Iran having any reactors until they have more strict guidelines to follow.
Of course I personally believe a little bit of war is a good thing,and a lot is a great thing.
o.O
Huh?
_"Men are never convinced of your reasons, of your sincerity, of the seriousness of your sufferings, except by your death. So long as you are alive, your case is doubtful; you have a right only to your skepticism. "<br>
-Albert Camus
SP: Given the current amount of backpedaling the administration is doing regarding Iraq's WMD's, I have to wonder. Rumsfield and Flescher also repeatedly claimed that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, as did Bush in many speeches; that has yet to be proven.
We knew Iran has very strong ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. Them and Syria are all but public about the matter. If this were a response to 9/11, the international community would have objected far less to us taking out either country.
The problem is, after the mess in Iraq, should Bush try and push further into the Middle east, the rest of the world will scream loud and hard that we're trying to take over the world's oil supply. Without clear provocation, any further military activity will confirm that fear in the minds of world leaders.
I'm of the opinion that if we were going to force regime change because someone supported terrorism, we should have gone after the biggest targets, instead of a convenient one. If fighting terrorism was the goal, we've hurt matters by not taking on the worst threats.
Has anyone looked at a map recently? We've got nearly a quarter million highly trained troops with battle experience sitting right between Syria and Iran. You think they aren't aware of that? Taking out Saddam may or may not be a morraly defensible act, but from a strategic point of view we've put a mighty big stick in the faces of Syria and Iran.
MooCow wrote:I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate for us poor ignorant Bovines.... We don't get off the farm much, and Farmer Brown won't spring for Cable.
It's that whole checks and balances thing you learned in seventh-grade civics class. The judicial branch and the executive branch are two different monsters entirely. One interprets the law (judges, like the Supreme Court) and the other enforces it (cops and such). The fact that a judge's interpretation of the law is completely unenforceable should have little to no effect on his ruling.
------------------------------------- Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
You know that you can use it.
- The Clash, "Clampdown"
Anarchy In One Sentence
If it were that good an idea, you wouldn't need it to be a law, would you?
I think Walt hit it on the head. A big stick looks real good sittin' on the steps where the local tuff's can see it. No as to whether they have the balls to swing said stick, or the back to put some umph! behind it, well thats debatable, and remains to be seen.
