It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by PrincessJasmin

dead economy
liars and theif in governments and bank
so much has no house or medicine and aid

look at katrina storm, make governments look so bad and still is bad there

better to watch tv and eat big mac and shop at walmart to bring happiness?

very sad logic

Not to get too far off topic but....

Well who hasn't seen this coming? Here we go...
Contrary to "Pop Culture " Beliefs the US and EU are still the big dogs. This can get ugly real fast. With the shrinking of the US manufacturing sector from the glory days of over 30% of world production now down to 21% and falling. It is becoming very apparent the US needs to start Manufacturing again. But how can one compete on an uneven playing field?

Some feel our real problem is not under manufacturing but over consumption our industries cannot keep up with our own demands. All too often too many statements are made that only increase the confusion of the reality of the situation. Yes the US has lost manufacturing jobs. Yes our industry is on the decline. No arguments there. But there are many ways to judge the situation. I even wrote a thread on topic Here I understand all too well. No need to preach to the choir.

Most of what the US does produce are higher end higher technology that the average consumer would not see or is even aware of they would not find them on the shelves at Walmart. Heres the kicker they are not all defense related either.

World’s largest manufacturer
Published 6/23/09
Filed under: Miscellaneous, Politics

What country is the world’s largest manufacturer by a huge margin? If you have a kid, you would think it must be China — I don’t know the last time I saw I toy (or anything else, really) that wasn’t made there.


Accounting for more than 20% of the world’s total manufacturing output is the United States.

Japan is a distant second at just over 13%. Then China (12%), and Germany (8.2%). Then, well, everyone else. (Data come from the Dept. of Labor and the United Nations.)

Revenue Leaders by Nation
Country/Province Number of Companies Revenue Total (Millions) Average Company Revenue Growth (%)*
United States 290 $5,386,377 10.50
Japan 233 $3,624,074 6.74
Germany 40 $1,269,963 11.97
France 48 $1,103,959 4.23
United Kingdom 36 $882,521 17.30
China 36 $606,892 19.74
Netherlands 13 $599,939 7.97
South Korea 37 $574,252 27.46
Switzerland 21 $364,031 2.90
Italy 15 $356,603 5.75
Russia 8 $338,870 32.37
Canada 27 $335,500 24.20
Taiwan 29 $328,564 5.47
India 12 $206,903 48.20
Finland 16 $189,505 0.56
Brazil 10 $184,523 23.04
Sweden 14 $161,619 6.29
Spain 6 $149,468 7.73
Luxembourg 3 $145,569 14.33
Australia 12 $143,580 38.52
*Manufacturers that did not appear on the 2008 IW 1000 list were not included in revenue growth averages.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by PrincessJasmin

America is broken country why no fix before making problems in other countries?

You know, in all truthfulness, to an extent, I agree with you here.

I am all about the U.S becoming an isolationist nation. Don't mess with anyone. However, I believe in doing it under the stipulation that when we withdraw from the world, we close all of our borders and if anyone has the audacity to bomb us or whatever, blow em' off the map.

See, we can agree on something.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well lets consider the history between Iran and the UK for a second.
Iran is divided and as stated earlier by other posters there is a large percentage of Iranians who actually like the US. Thats creates a problem for TPTB in Iran. They cant blame the "Great Satan" alone but if they can dig a little deeper into their past and find an "Enemy" that maybe both sides can rally behind there is a chance they can nip this in the bud...

Just my opinion...

I agree with your point that the Iranian government are the ones who want to make this look like a foreign plot. I'm by far no government apologist, I just feel that in this event, we are not involved on the ground at all. The CIA is not a completely rogue organization, they take orders and Obama clearly does not want to be in the middle of this. Imagine if people finally got so fed up with laws and tax money going to corporate interest, and there were to be a popular uprising here in the states. What if the government decided to claim the uprising was a Russian or Chinese plot to destabilize the US, in order to justify brutal violence and turn those who may be on the fence against the uprising? I think that until some evidence presents itself, we owe the Iranian people the favor of not spreading their brutal government's propaganda for them. Not to suggest you are knowingly doing that.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by RDR17

lol, ya I got that nickname when I used to Box back in the day it's stuck to me, guess that's how I see life... go through life, good and bad; like a freight train loose on the track !

The day will come where the world has to change to meet the peoples needs of freedom! I personally thank internet to allow humanity to evolve to the next stage we can see this by what people are doing in Iran.

Since "Cyrus the Great" Persians lost their home! Shahs' father did some good for the people but Shah himself sold our country to the West (CIA put Shah in power). Khomeini educated people (at the time he was a student in a US University) on what valuable resources (Oil and other exports) was stolen in front of their eyes (which were mostly true) and so people rioted on the streets (1979 Revolution) and throw Shah out and replaced him by Khomeini! BUT one thing Khomeini forgot to mention is that he was a "religious fanatic", but it was too late
power was given to him and people of Iran got the shaft again, even much worse then what Shah was doing. So now... 30 years later people are fed up again
and they want change (FREEDOM)!

I hope they get it, so the rest of the world can see it's possible to "stand up"
to the big bad wolf (the few old men in power)! ONE needs to happen for the rest to happen, this is the GREAT beginning of the past! We are born free and so we can live free!

"We are ALL living cells of GOD" Alex Grey!

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by freighttrain

I agree. It's amazing how some are so ignorant to the true history and culture of the Persian people. Cyrus the Great was the first leader to institute freedom of religion. The people of Iran are very bright, very modern, extremely Philosophical, and yearn for peace and freedom.

If Iran became a free country through this uprising, it would change the world over night. All of a sudden you would have 3 major democracies in the Middle East, there would exist no so called Iranian threat, and I believe with Hesbola, hammas, and other extremest groups severely weakened, there would be a greater chance at a 2 state solution for the Palestinians. This is the opportunity that the world needed and has been waiting for. I just wish President Obama would've recognized it.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:37 PM
'Ahmadinejad win requires primed IDF'

Speaking at a graduation ceremony for new IAF pilots in Hatzerim on Thursday, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi stated that the victory of hardliner president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian presidential elections requires the IDF to remain primed and prepared.
Ashkenazi greets the wife of...

"The reelection of the Iranian president, his remarks on his intention to harm Israel, and his efforts to obtain unconventional weapons, require us to be prepared to deal with every threat, far away and nearby," Ashkenazi said. "As the chief of general staff I know - only a strong and high quality IDF will keep war at bay and if necessary, will subdue the enemy and win."

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by RDR17

I hope I didn't give the impression I was belittling the Iranian peoples struggle for freedom. If I did then I apologize. I just wanted to inform other readers who are less familiar with the situation and to offer them a chance to learn how vital Iran is to the region and the world.

The US is not!

The only player in the game. Just the most obvious.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

No, I wasn't referring to you at all. I was speaking mostly of the media driven portrayal of the Iranian people.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:10 PM
Not into Political Science (PoliSci) or Geopolitics but I stand up for
then Iranian people who should sit down now and regroup if getting
off the streets means anything.

So we should let Iran govern themselves.
If we bomb the heck out of their weapons 98% of the
people will be saved to make more weapons but that
might not be so quick.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
Still not convinced of the Great Game?
the following is a sample of today's latest headlines. It reads like a play book to me...

P.S. I left the headlines of Micheal Jackson out

World Agenda: Pakistan and US unite in pursuit of Taleban leader

At last Pakistan and the United States appear to be genuinely co-operating in the battle against the Taleban and al-Qaeda militants in the mountainous tribal areas along the porous border with Afghanistan.

Pakistan has finally accepted that it has to send its army into South Waziristan to kill or capture Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taleban in Pakistan and the main al Qaeda “facilitator” in the region.

NATO Entering New Stage in Afghanistan

A NATO commander in southern Afghanistan says military operations there are entering a completely new stage, focused on bringing security and economic development to the local population.

Top US Official Promotes US-Pakistani Relations

The U.S. National Security Adviser, General James Jones, visited Islamabad on Thursday and praised the Pakistani army's commitment to defeat Islamic extremists. The general also called recent successes against Pakistani militants in northwestern Swat Valley a "confidence-builder" for relations between the United States and Pakistan.

Russia, rest of G8 clash on approach to Iran

TRIESTE, Italy, June 25 (Reuters) - Group of Eight powers were divided on how to respond to Iran's disputed election on Thursday, with hosts Italy pushing for a strong condemnation of violence and Russia calling the vote "an exercise in democracy".

Western nations at a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in Trieste were pushing for tough language in a final communique on Iran, where about 20 people have been killed in demonstrations following the June 12 presidential election two weeks ago.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
P.S. I left the headlines of Micheal Jackson out

No joke, it's spreading like wildfire that Michael Jackson is dead. Say goodbye to any more American interest in Iran, the mullahs are probably high fiving, and moonwalking as we speak...

[edit on 25-6-2009 by 27jd]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by SLAYER69
P.S. I left the headlines of Micheal Jackson out

No joke, it's spreading like wildfire that Michael Jackson is dead. Say goodbye to any more American interest in Iran, the mullahs are probably high fiving, and moonwalking as we speak...

[edit on 25-6-2009 by 27jd]

LOL!!! Sad but true. Just like that Iran becomes page 9 news.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:38 PM

It was a CIA plot to throw attention away from my thread!

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:51 PM
1. I always wonder if the life style of the first class countries is SOLELY (that word plays a major role in my comment) based off of the "slavery" of other countries?

2. If all countries were actually given a right to their own products and resources, I wonder HOW MUCH the life of an average American would change?

Depending on the answer to number two - do Americans actually care what happens over seas - as long as we can get our own stuff for cheapy cheapy?

When it comes to foreign affairs, maybe Obama IS doing the right thing by staying *in war*.

Has the picture of war ever been painted truthfully to the American people?

Is it for the better?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

On CNN's home page, his picture is taking almost the entire page, totally not necessary and a good indication of what we're going to be enduring for at least the next 2 weeks.

Anyway, back on topic. I definitely agree there are a few places in the ME right now that we are heavily and covertly involved in, I just don't think the protests in Iran are US sponsored or planned, sometimes a duck is a duck, IMO. I hope it really is what it seems, because it will be nice to welcome a large muslim population into this century when they finally get what they're fighting for.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by 27jd

Couldn't agree more!!!

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

When it comes to foreign affairs, maybe Obama IS doing the right thing by staying *in war*.

Has the picture of war ever been painted truthfully to the American people?

Is it for the better?

I'm going to use a quote from a post in a debate from our very own debate forum here at ATS. It was about a debate on whether the US is still or should still be a world leader.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Rebuttal Section

My opponent states

As I read it, it is a debate on whether or not the United States has failed in it's role as "world leader". If they were to step aside, obviously a replacement would be necessary. However, our debate is based on whether or not they have failed in this role, not who should replace them. Whether there is a formidable replacement or not, it carries no weight on how good of a job they've done thus far. With that said, I do see some countries that are worth consideration and could step into the role.

I’m afraid I entirely disagree. The debate is about whether or not the USA has lost its ability to be the world leader, and whether or not another country can step up and fill that gap. Without consideration of the second section (understandable, as it destroys my opponent’s entire position), the entire debate would be moot. If no replacement is possible, then how can the leader be removed?

My opponent states

This is precisely my point. While my opponent stands for a strong leader and supports such fear tactics, the outcome of lives lost will be the same. During the Holocaust, millions of lives were lost because there was a leader at the helm who people feared and nobody questioned. I would ask for more from our "world leader". I do not want to see fear. With trust and respect we enforce accountability and operate under a true democracy. The United States has had their time and they have failed.

I’m afraid you are conflating two separate analytical factors. We can imagine leadership on a X-Y axis graph, where X is strong/ weak and Y is “morally good”/”morally bad”. Hitler was strong, but he was also evil. As was Stalin.
Churchill was strong and good.
Chamberlain was weak and moderate.
Etc etc.

The world needs a strong leader, who is also good. A strong leader must wield and command both fear and respect. A leader who isn’t feared cannot be taken seriously. That was my contention re: leadership.

My opponent states

If the United States is not willing to stand up for the rights of its own people, how can we ever expect them to stand up for the rights of others? The point of what I had to say in my opening post was that same-sex marriage is banned in the United States. Health care is not something that everyone is offered, as it is a business where money not well-being is the primary goal. So in a country where they look at man or woman and say, "No, you're different. You're not allowed to get married!".. I oppose this individual as the leader of a diverse planet of ethnicity and cultures.

My opponent fails to take into account that all those things are morally subjective points of view. Those examples he gave- universal healthcare, gay marriage etc are highly subjective viewpoints reflecting my opponent’s own beliefs and positions.
How can he expect a world leader to thrust those points upon other countries, who may have different morals and belief systems?

A world leader must not export a certain dogmatic brand of liberal ideology. A world leader must simply exist for one reason- to protect basic natural rights: i.e the right to exist (intervention in genocide, conflict); liberty (intervention against slavery and human trafficking); estate and property rights (intervention against wholesale state theft).

In all these spheres the USA has been a fantastic world leader for the past 60 years.
Have any world wars occurred since the USA has been world leader?
Hasn’t the USA intervened against natural rights violations in Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Kosovo and Iraq?
Hasn’t the USA been funding anti-slavery drives and initiatives, and sponsoring Interpol?

If you watch an episode of “The Apprentice”, you will realize that the USA is often bashed because it is the world leader, and bashing the leader is the simplest solution for the unthinking. If we consider the record of the USA, it has been the president of global prosperity and peace in historical terms.

On the international stage, gay marriage rights are wholely irrelevant. That is an issue for each country to decide, and the position of the world leader should not be taken as a model position.

My opponent states

A2: I believe the world leader to be the example of what other countries should strive to become.

This is a great ideological position, and in theory of course I would agree to it. However in the real world, the leader must take pragmatic action. Like I said, the US providing universal healthcare to its citizens will not solve the problem of genocide in Darfur, nor will legalizing gay marriage cease Somalian piracy.

My opponent states

1. Which other country is capable of taking over as world leader?
A1: This is hardly a basic answer but I believe there to be only a few logical candidates that would even be capable. But even these candidates have areas of improvement before being fully considered. The People's Republic of China seems to be what most people look to. While it is not a lone country, I do believe the European Union could pose to become a formidable leader.

Really? You propose to replace a democratic, constitutionally bound country with a communist dictatorship. A world under China would be a perfect example of frying pan to fire. I won’t even bother to list the human rights violations that China has participated in- it’s quite evident that they are in no way morally superior to the USA.

Socratic section

Q1 : Do you believe the United States is setting an example for other countries to follow when it comes out that they are guilty of torturing prisoners?

A1 : No. Other countries are quite capable in indulging in torture themselves, and have done so far before the US ever did. There is also considerable doubt over whether the US’ “enhanced interrogation techniques” (such as waterboarding) even constitute torture.

Q2 : Should our "world leader" be more than a strong military presence?

A2 : Yes. The art of foreign policy is rooted upon diplomacy. The first resort is always diplomacy, and the US has always stuck to that position. Militarism is merely the expansion of diplomacy by other means. The world leader should not however, be a moral police. Each country must decide upon their own culture, morals and beliefs.

Q3 : How do you define the role of our "world leader"?

A3 : I define the role of “world leader” as the single country that holds the most sway in creating a condition of stability. Prime current examples where world leadership is required are the situations in Darfur, Zimbabwe and Somalian piracy.

Q4 : Throughout history, we've seen many "world leaders". Do you believe that the United States has been the strong in the role? If so, why?

A4 : Absolutely. Let’s briefly review the prior world leaders before the USA.
The Prussian and Ottoman empires in the 17/18th C. Were they good world leaders? Their campaigns of warfare suggest otherwise.
The British in the 19th/20th C. Were they good leaders? Colonialism says otherwise.
The Americans in the late 20th C. Were they good leaders? Relatively good… defeated the twin menaces of communism and fascism, while creating a booming world economy and engaging in scientific progress.

The US may have its faults (namely VietNam and Iraq), but these are far outweighed by its positive contribution to the world. People forget the good acts the USA does (such as charitable contributions, disaster relief etc) because they have become complacent and come to expect it.

Socratic questions

1. How can we reconcile differences in moral opinions between different countries?
2. Do you honestly think China would make a more moral leader than the USA?
3. Do you think the USA has been a good leader, in historical terms?
4. Do you think that the USA was right or wrong to intervene in Iraq to protect the human rights of Iraqis?
5. Who decides the remit of the world leader? Who decides the “job description” of world leader?

Soulslayer’s first : Poleconomy

The USA has presided over the biggest increase in wealth the world has ever seen. Take a look at this graph to see how the past 50 years compare to the previous 1950 years!

The USA has been the catalyst for this dynamic increase in the world’s GDP. The US has been the engine of growth for the world, via its capitalist free market policies. The US has been a thought leader in economics, via Krugman, Amartya Sen, Stiglitz et al.

The USA is the biggest economy in the world, and serves as a massive consumer market.
Who does China rely on selling products to? The USA.
Who does India rely on selling BPO/ KPO services to? The USA.

Now let’s take a look at how charitable the USA is. It’s the undisputed world leader in terms of charity.

Politically, we know that the USA is the undisputed world leader. The UN security council is largely influenced by the policies of the USA, and the US continues to wield this power.

Which other country even comes close to being economically or politically as influential as the USA?

China? Nope, just look how people ran away from China and towards the USA once the economic crisis started.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:11 PM
What's up Slayer? I have one word for your threads, Wow!! I find your information interesting and well put together. At least in terms of the first Great Game there was no nuclear weapons. However, this time we have a country that is growing and hungry for resources, a country fighting for its' survival and world importance, and a country re-emerging on the world stage. It sounds almost like a Tom Clancy novel but it is real.

However, you put three of the worlds super powers in one area each trying to leverage the other and it has a chance of getting messy. All it will take is one misunderstanding between the three and we have a major military conflict. What scares me the most from your research is the fact that these tricks in central Asia can culminate into nuclear war.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:16 PM
A good thread Slayer! S&F for you.
The game will continue to be a factor in geopolitics,China and Russia cannot like what has been happening in Iran right now the Mullahs go down and they are screwed.Not to mention The Saudis and other countries in the region being run by dictators or royal families.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

It's interesting how the MSM doesn't report it in these terms they prefer to keep the issue separated or fragmented so that the masses don't really understand the BIG picture.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in