proof that the iran business is not bout nuclear anything, it's about banking

[chad]

the eu has frozen all of iran's bank assets and has banned eu countries from trading with iran in au + ag. apparently when you stop using dollars, large groups of aircraft carriers get sent to be parked right offshore of your country.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/currency-wars-iran-banned-trading-gold-and-silver#comments

[woodman]

That's how organized crime works. If you don't cooperate with the hoodlums, your enterprise (country) will be burnt down. Doesn't matter how many innocents die. Doesn't matter what is right or wrong. The syndicate gets what they want, at least until another syndicate steps in to fill a power vacuum.

[palani]

I believe if a country seizes diplomats in violation of international law they set aside any claim they might have against the same law. It is solely a matter of time before the matter of the Shah gets resolved.

[woodman]

I believe if a country seizes diplomats in violation of international law they set aside any claim they might have against the same law. It is solely a matter of time before the matter of the Shah gets resolved.

Oh, you want to talk about sovereignty issues. True that our embassy staff and embassy was attacked and it was an attack on our countries assetts. Counter that with the fact that our government illegally overthrew their rightfully elected government prior to installing puppet ruler the Shah. Many died and the oil companies were once again allowed free reign to rape the assetts of the Iranian people. I'd say what they did paled in comparison to the aggregious assault we visited upon them.

[woodman]

Then to address the international law issue you raised. I believe they acted within the law if they had reasonable assurance that the diplomats in question were acting as enemy agents. They had such reasonable assurance in that we had used our embassy prior to the Shah to overthrow their government and instate the Shah as a puppet ruler for our corporations. Our country is the only one we can be sure has been acting in a lawless and ruthless manner.

[palani]

I'd say what they did paled in comparison to the aggregious assault we visited upon them.
So your view is that one wrong deserves another?

[palani]

I believe they acted within the law if they had reasonable assurance that the diplomats in question were acting as enemy agents.

Diplomats of a foreign government are always FOREIGN agents. To be declared an ENEMY requires a declaration of WAR.

Aliens come in two flavors, friends and enemies. Enemies you are permitted to kill (unless they surrender of course). Friends you tend to protect. For an enemy to exist there must be a declared state of WAR.

I wouldn't attempt to consider events that can only be considered HEARSAY. Few know any facts at all. An opinion based on fiction is bound to get your tit in a wringer eventually.

[Ares]

Chad,

No surprise there. Just look at Lybia. The rebels started off by creating a central bank..

[woodman]

So your view is that one wrong deserves another?

No, they were protecting themselves as they have a right to. Back in 1980 I did not see it that way, but I was ill informed. It does seem to be your view though.

[QUOTE=palani;510324]It is solely a matter of time before the matter of the Shah gets resolved. [QUOTE]

[woodman]

Diplomats of a foreign government are always FOREIGN agents. To be declared an ENEMY requires a declaration of WAR.

Aliens come in two flavors, friends and enemies. Enemies you are permitted to kill (unless they surrender of course). Friends you tend to protect. For an enemy to exist there must be a declared state of WAR.

I wouldn't attempt to consider events that can only be considered HEARSAY. Few know any facts at all. An opinion based on fiction is bound to get your tit in a wringer eventually.

We did not declare war on them when our agents violently overthrew their democratically elected government. You claim to know the truth? And just how did you arrive at this exalted state? Few know any facts as you say, then what makes you think you are one of the few and entitled to any opinion at all?

[palani]

It does seem to be your view though.
I hope you don't mind an opposing view. I am still waiting for the U.S. (un)civil war to become settled. The Iranian thing started with the Shah in the late '40s. Why would the current situation not be related to the "shah thing"?

[palani]

We did not declare war on them when our agents violently overthrew their democratically elected government. You claim to know the truth? And just how did you arrive at this exalted state? Few know any facts as you say, then what makes you think you are one of the few and entitled to any opinion at all?
Who said I had a view? I might be slightly more familiar with international law and the law of nations than you though. Have you read Vattel?

I suspect there is much similarity between the game of chess and international diplomacy. You might make a move which is a feint to cause your opponent to make a move of his own. Except your move might be within the realm of your own law while his is a completely outlaw move. So who is at fault? You for staying within your law or him for choosing to become an outlaw? The goal after all is world dominion (so I am told).

People who don't know the game are lost before they start.

[woodman]

Who said I had a view? I might be slightly more familiar with international law and the law of nations than you though. Have you read Vattel?

I suspect there is much similarity between the game of chess and international diplomacy. You might make a move which is a feint to cause your opponent to make a move of his own. Except your move might be within the realm of your own law while his is a completely outlaw move. So who is at fault? You for staying within your law or him for choosing to become an outlaw? The goal after all is world dominion (so I am told).

People who don't know the game are lost before they start.

I have not read Vattel but I just looked him up and I see he wrote 'The Law of Nations' which I have heard referenced before. I will put it on my reading list. I actually have had time to do a little reading of late. Am almost through 'The Unseen Hand'. It should be required reading.

[palani]

I have not read Vattel but I just looked him up and I see he wrote 'The Law of Nations' which I have heard referenced before. I will put it on my reading list. I actually have had time to do a little reading of late. Am almost through 'The Unseen Hand'. It should be required reading.

The Law of Nations is an interesting read. As it was written around 1760 it's ideas are incorporated in the founding documents of the U.S.

After reading it understand that nobody plays by this set of rules any more. That does not make them less desirable or less ideal. It is just that wars are fought between federations now rather than countries. This is a game changer.