May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« What Qualifies as a Mental Problem? | Main | Homo Erectus »

Comments

BillyBob

Those claiming that Iran has the cheapest fuel in the world and have no need for secondary sources of energy have got a lot of things wrong. First off, sure, it costs about 30cents a gallon in Iran. To any american without a passport, that's CHEAP! Regardless of course that many people there make 2.50$ in a whole work day. The government has to subsidy the fuel and take money away from other critical sectors.

That's not even considering Iran has to import half of the fuel it consumes, because of a lack of refineries. That's also not considering the arab countries realize quite well their wealth based on gas is not eternal at all. They need to diversify their economy if they don't want to crumble in 50-100 years.

Their energy need is very real.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052800548.html

not josh

To Josh
(Posted by: josh | September 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM)

This is a question to which Mr Adams simply cannot answer. As far as the US law is concerned (if I am correct), there is only one possible answer. If he answers with "No", he is automatically an outlaw. No more blog, no more Dilbert...

You people must be very proud: you have taken the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech to levels that would make your forefathers proud of you.

If you can think clearly for just a moment, please try to focus on what I state here: this is not about the historical events, this is about a right to freely express your point of view, that has been removed on a (single) subject.

In case you wonder, my answer is the legal one: 1), yes, I do.

But I guess it makes you proud walking about in Earth's most democratic country thinking that there is a subject on which you cannot freely discuss...

Patrick Kelly

Unless you think one person was involved with 9/11, you believe in a conspiracy. The only argument is about who and why, and maybe how.

It's bizarre/surreal that "truther" is now an insult. Aw, you awful, awful people, asking for further investigation about a major historical event in order to know the truth about it. Off with their heads.

LeGioNofZioN

angel and any other South Africans who are confused about Bushes "Mandelas are dead" "gaffe" .... check the context before assuming everything on Jon Stewart is true as presented. Bush was talking about the Mdelas of the Iraqi rising up to unify the country and he said they had been killed, an inferrance that Hussein already offed them. Just so you know, I hate ignorance on a posting

Michael Webb

Urs,

How about "I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives."

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Oh, that was, what, two posts ago? No wonder you forgot it.

DL From Heidelberg

Scott: You wrote "I don’t think it’s crazy to ask whether some dark forces in the U.S. and Israel had the means and the warped motive to help with the logistics, even if only in some small support way."

You also wrote: "I think Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons. They have the means and the motive (defense)."

If you believe its reasonable to ask whether the U.S. and Israel had means and motive to help execute the events of 9-11, and believe Iran wants nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, you have been living in California too long. Stick to humor because your grasp of the real world has had the schnitzel.

Marco

>>>
Ahmadinejad didn't deny Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran.
<<<

PLEASE clarify Scott:
Do you also believe that the US helping (by suppling money, weapons) Israel harm Palestinans is an act of war, and that this is a legitimate reason for the Palestinians to attack the US?
(Seems like an almost perfect analogy)

[It wouldn't benefit the Palestinians to attack the U.S., but I accept your analogy. -- Scott]

Simon

I was intrigued by the line
"...But he said Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons and has no need for them."

No need for them? Has he looked at an atlas?

To the west he has Iraq crawling with jumpy American servicemen, Saudi Arabia (armed to teeth by Uncle Sam)and Israel. To the East is Afganistan, Pakistan, India and China. To the north are the various ex-soviet Stans (where god only knows how much 30 year old hardware is lying around as if on a Bring & Buy Sale), topped off by Russia.

If ever there was a country that needed to keep up with the Joneses, it seems to be Iran.

I'm not justifying the development of ANOTHER Nuclear power. I'm just surprised that Ahmadinejad doesn't feel the need to tool up.

LA Clay

right now Scott is in his office cussing out typepad for deleting his hockey player post

pierre

"sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut"

haha, this is great.

more seriously, I find this strange that George didn't use his UN speech to rattle his saber at Iran as expected. Talking about Burmese monks instead sounded like a last-minute change to me. He didn't join the fray about Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia either.

What the hell is happening, to make him change direction and appear to soften his stance on Iran?

This squirrel knows something we don't, and my take is that something big is about to happen. False flag anyone ?

DMD.

Steve

Well writen scott

Joemer

Is Ahmadinejad the new Hussein? Was he pulled from the same upstate New York dinner theater circuit? Let the brainwashing begin! Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same ... as it ever was.

Adrian Phillips

As a commentary on the public's media-lead (provided by pro-zionist media companies) frenzy you're doing a wonderful job. On understanding the politics under the surface, you're not.

For example. The UN's chief weapons programme inspector and his big team of weapons inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear weapons programmes or plans in Iran. Still that RESEARCH BASED RESULT, wont stop Bush going into another illegal invasion. I suppose maybe we should go in there, bomb it to the ground, kill everyone, create even more anti-west sentiment and find "no WMD". Hey at least we'll have the oil as a consequence.

I invite everyone to print this email out, place it in an envelope marked "Do not open until Iran is also a lawless mess with over 1,000,000 civilians dead and the oil is flowing back through the US markets". Open it up some day later, read it, reflect on how ignorant you were, how media-lead you were and do something about it.

Yours,
One less Dilbert customer

mr tom

In the late 1800s, England had no more Lesbians.

Mainly because Queen Victoria refused to believe that it was even possible for them to exist and therefore they didn't (officially) for the next century.

wernman

The most common mistake in politics and in international affairs is to assume your opponent is like you. This assumption is human nature, and thus takes a consciuous effort to not make. It causes you to personify your motivations, ethical constraints, and goals onto the other party. You then misinterpret their actions (since you're seeing those actions with your motivations and goals instead of theirs), and falsely predict their future actions, which can be disasterous. The poster child for this error is Chamberland before WWII, when he got his signed paper from Hitler that was going to protect Europe. We all know how that turned out.

I don't think Iran's building nukes for self-defense. Their greatest threat is us (America), so if they wanted to do something is self-defense they'd establish their own democracy before we do it for them.

I think Ahmadinejad's neclear motives are:

1) Be the BMOD (Big Man On Desert). He'd be the giant among his ankle-biting neighbors. The status would also allow him to strong-arm his neighbors. Remember the Arab world is constantly fighting amoung themselves when there's not a handy Jew or America to kill.

2) Support and supply someone who is craxy enough to nuke Israel or the US. You don't need a missle-delivery system. Supply them with parts so they could build a nuke in a apartment in Tel Aviv, DC, NY, or LA and then set it off.

Iain

When you say 'a reason to attack Iran' presumably you do not mean 'a legitimate reason to attack Iran', as in one of the internationally recognised cassus belli for going to war or similar. Presumably you mean a reason as in the trumped up bollocks used by the US to randomly attack whoever it suits.

bcammack

Because we are programmed to discriminate patterns and it pervades our entire behavioral spectrum? I didn't make the rules and I don't like it either. I just have to deal with it just like you do.

MB

I wish things were as simple as that, in the end if you nuke Israel what are you doing? Think about that for a second.
You make the land useless to the Palestinians or any one else for generations to come, it is likely that the nukes will also not let Lebanon or Jordan unaffected.
The region is not so large that it would be able to handle such an attack.
The cultural gap and world views are so far apart that it makes you want to pull your hair out...
This whole things is frustrating, and worse of everything is that we sit here in ME feeling rather helpless and waiting for all hell to break loose.
I’m 25, this is the third war I have lived through, and US vs. Iran will be the fourth. Children who are six now have known nothing in their short lives but hate and war; here in my country and those in the states for them, their home has always been in a war.
:(

Alan

"Likewise, Ahmadinejad didn't deny Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran. It's a separate question as to whether an attack on Iran is in America's best interest."

Um, some American weapons are getting to the insurgents in Iraq, and to terrorist groups in other places. And we never did attack Florida for training the 9/11 pilots.

Do you doubt that Americans are helping to kill Iranians, Palestinians, etc., etc. not to mention Iraqis? So Bush is arguing that the Iraqis have a legitimate reason to follow us home, when we someday pull out of that mess? Hell, we shot down one of Iran's civilian airliners some years back, and not even a reprimand to the capitan. Have we acknowldeged their "legitimate reasons" for attacking us? (Perhaps this is what Ahmadinejad had in mind in suggesting to look for the reasons for 9/11.)

Francesco Orsenigo

IMHO, Iran has a lot more right of intervention in a neightbouring, hostile and wrecked country than US has right to be in Iraq.

Btw, speaking of right, WHY exactly US are in Iraq...? o_O

Iran fought a costly war against Iraq, armed by the West, they have the RIGHT to interfere in Iraq and even more so interfere against the West.

Again, we're told that 'terrorists' are attacking civilians and personnel, but in the confusion of the war and with all the factions involved, how in the world can we know WHO is actually carrying the attacks? Iran? Al-Queda? Al-Sadr? Mercenaries? Local gangs?
How can we know, and how can we be sure after the sequel of lies that led us in the war?
I'm not buying this.

To me Iran and US presidents are just the same: liars and warmongers, creating enemies and using fear to cling to their power and cover their incompetence in bringing a country to prosperity.

jaques

"I don’t think it’s crazy to ask whether some dark forces in the U.S. and Israel had the means and the warped motive to help with the logistics, even if only in some small support way."

Scott,

My tiny brain doesn't understand. First you accuse your detractors of having mental disorder ("ripperitis").

Now you accuse me as summoned by "Dark Forces" to criticize you. Furthermore, it is probable that "Dark Forces" plus an int'l Zionist Conspiracy were behind the 9/11 mass murders! Perfectly reasonable!

So when is Dilbert going to go all "Turner Diaries" commando revolutionary and retake America from Zionists and the "Dark Forces" of America?

Scott, you get nuttier/scarrier with every post...like Mel Gibson in slow motion.

Angel

off topic, I know... Did you know that your brilliant president made a public statement last week announcing that Nelson Mandela was dead? News to us South Africans - he's alive and well (even if he's getting on in years) and we still love him.

Urs

You keep saying:

... Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran.


Is it really? Are the Americans legitimately in Iraq? I do not recall any Iraqi government inviting you. Imagine any foreign force entering the U.S. of A. Let's say Canada would help those of you fighting the intruders. And that would be interpreted as legitimation to attack Canada as well?!?

Urs

You keep saying:

... Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran.


Is it really? Are the Americans legitimately in Iraq? I do not recall any Iraqi government inviting you. Imagine any foreign force entering the U.S. of A. Let's say Canada would help those of you fighting the intruders. And that would be interpreted as legitimation to attack Canada as well?!?

Urs

You keep saying:

... Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran.


Is it really? Are the Americans legitimately in Iraq? I do not recall any Iraqi government inviting you. Imagine any foreign force entering the U.S. of A. Let's say Canada would help those of you fighting the intruders. And that would be interpreted as legitimation to attack Canada as well?!?

The comments to this entry are closed.