Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US sanctions Rosoboronexport, Sukhoi over Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by parihaka
    FROM HERE
    tens of millions is a high side estimate, but not unrealistic given the mentality of both the Military high command and the general psyche of the Japanese people.
    gah... ok, but then again you have to pick... is it worth killing civillians to avoid killing combatants even though the combatants that would've died would've been more in number...
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tronic
      gah... ok, but then again you have to pick... is it worth killing civillians to avoid killing combatants even though the combatants that would've died would've been more in number...
      The American decision to drop the bombs was quite rightly based on preventing American casualties. Japanese casualties whether military or civilian came a distant second to that. It's some thing to keep in mind for all conflicts. Any right thinking Govt. has the preservation of its own citizenry as its first consideration.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
        That's lack of civil and political 'rights' as various people may describe them, yes.

        But it's not tyranny, because you shouldn't have a right to enslave others just because a majority happens to agree with you.

        Freedom in its most basic sense is the freedom to do what you, the individual, wants so long as you respect the ability of others to do so. When you're prevented from doing this by the state, that's a concrete example of tyranny.
        I think you are mixing Socialism with Soviet Communism... The Soviets opressed a lot of Eastern European nations because of the threat from seperatists... Communism doesn't automatically mean oppression of minorities... Take the French Revolution for example... with their "Liberty, Equality and Ferternity(?)"... the French revolution was based on a LOT of socialism... see... this is the difference... the same argument can be used both ways.. like you say, if the majority of the people want Communism (and i'm not saying 51%.. I mean the big majority...) then you say that the minorities will be under tyranny... but most of the people craving for such a change (just like in the French Revolution) feel that they are the majority being subjected under tyranny by the minority...



        You're right, it's not democratic. There are very few advocates of real democracy in the world today, and I'm not one of them.
        no I meant it is not democratic to opress the people even if they want something... but just one thing... make sure whatever someone else wants.. its not something that I have to give away... if someone wants something they should get as long as they are not taking something from someone else... and such systems have worked before... some of the Indian commies wanted the property of all the people of the state they were in power to be divided up amongst the poor... obviously they didn't get such a thing but i'm just saying that communism and capitalism can co-exist as long as people have the choice to be capitalist or communist... if the majority want to be communist then give that to them.. and the minority stays capitalist... or vice versa...

        Liberal democracies have specific constitutional restraints on the power of the majority. In practice, this means the power of an elected assembly.

        Just because 51% want to ban a book, for example, doesn't mean it's right, and so individual rights are protected by constitutions.

        What you're describing is democracy, not "liberal democracy", which is really modern slang for liberal, constitutional republics with elected representation like the US, France, Germany or liberal, constitutional monarchies with ceremonial heads of state and elected representation, like Britain, Japan and so on. 'Democracy' is just rule by majority, nothing else.
        there is more then one meaning of Democracy??? can you please give me some examples of non-liberal democracies???
        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by parihaka
          The American decision to drop the bombs was quite rightly based on preventing American casualties. Japanese casualties whether military or civilian came a distant second to that. It's some thing to keep in mind for all conflicts. Any right thinking Govt. has the preservation of its own citizenry as its first consideration.
          yes I know.. i'm not blaming America...

          i'm just contradicting whatever opinion or comment I don't sit good with... ;) and THAT is the appropriate and sensible reason for dropping the bomb... not because they wanted to avoid Japanese casualties...
          Last edited by Tronic; 08 Aug 06,, 00:41.
          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Tronic
            I think you are mixing Socialism with Soviet Communism...
            Socialism is still tyranny in its forcibly redistributive policy and general economic control. Watered-down from communism, yes, but still half-tyranny.

            The Soviets opressed a lot of Eastern European nations because of the threat from seperatists...
            Because they couldn't bear to let them defect? Awww...

            Communism doesn't automatically mean oppression of minorities...
            Democratic communism - the original ideal - does. Since the means of production are communally owned, decisions must be made by the majority. Hence - minority oppressed.

            Take the French Revolution for example... with their "Liberty, Equality and Ferternity(?)"...
            France nowadays is perhaps a poor example of liberal democracy, perhaps more social democracy.

            the French revolution was based on a LOT of socialism... see... this is the difference... the same argument can be used both ways.. like you say, if the majority of the people want Communism (and i'm not saying 51%.. I mean the big majority...) then you say that the minorities will be under tyranny... but most of the people craving for such a change (just like in the French Revolution) feel that they are the majority being subjected under tyranny by the minority...
            They 'feel', doesn't mean that they're right to politically abrogate other people's freedom.

            no I meant it is not democratic to opress the people even if they want something... but just one thing... make sure whatever someone else wants.. its not something that I have to give away... if someone wants something they should get as long as they are not taking something from someone else...
            That's my whole point, and democracy proper has no safeguard against that. If 51% want to redistribute wealth, it happens.

            and such systems have worked before... some of the Indian commies wanted the property of all the people of the state they were in power to be divided up amongst the poor... obviously they didn't get such a thing but i'm just saying that communism and capitalism can co-exist as long as people have the choice to be capitalist or communist... if the majority want to be communist then give that to them.. and the minority stays capitalist... or vice versa...
            PRECISELY.

            Ergo my previous example of the Israeli Kibbutz.

            When saying communism is oppression, I should have said the political strain - i.e. making the government communist.

            there is more then one meaning of Democracy??? can you please give me some examples of non-liberal democracies???
            Singapore is the most nearest example.

            But there is no country in the world which rules by popular referenda to decide all policy, and hence there is no true democracy in the world.

            Singapore has 'democratic' (slang for courts, parliament, so on) institutions but it's infamously illiberal. You hang for bringing 15g of heroin, 30g of cocaine, or 500g of weed into the country, last time I heard.
            HD Ready?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
              Socialism is still tyranny in its forcibly redistributive policy and general economic control. Watered-down from communism, yes, but still half-tyranny.
              actually its the other way around... Communism is suppose to be the road towards Socialism (the ultimate Utopia...).. but no one got past the Communism stage and hence Communism and Socialism only look good on paper...



              Because they couldn't bear to let them defect? Awww...
              ofcourse... Sattelite states were extremely important for the Soviets... The Soviet Union didn't have the luxury of two oceans on either side so they relied heavily on sattelite states as an early warning system if they got invaded/nuked...



              Democratic communism - the original ideal - does. Since the means of production are communally owned, decisions must be made by the majority. Hence - minority oppressed.
              But when the Majority is saying EVERYONE should be on an equal level... whatever rights/freedoms (or lack of) the majority gets; the minority gets also... its not that the Majority is getting something the minority isn't...



              They 'feel', doesn't mean that they're right to politically abrogate other people's freedom.
              if more then 90% of the population... like in the case of Vietnam where most of the population was extremely poor and wanted communism to help them get out of poverty, "feel" that the other 10% of the population is exploiting them; and the remaining 10% of the population is extremely corrupt which is keen on filling their own pockets, (part of the reason the South Vietnamese coalition failed...). Then are you saying that the 10% of the population should still have the right to exploit the poor... i.e. use the country's treasury for personal gains rather then using it for the benefit of all the population???



              That's my whole point, and democracy proper has no safeguard against that. If 51% want to redistribute wealth, it happens.
              no... its not 51% of the population... on more heavy issues like this; usually a STRONG majority is required... like 75%-80%....



              PRECISELY.

              Ergo my previous example of the Israeli Kibbutz.

              When saying communism is oppression, I should have said the political strain - i.e. making the government communist.
              yes... but again you have to see.. the ORIGINAL version of Socialism is that the people choose... so basically a referendum for EVERY issue, no matter how big or small... but again like I said, no country has achieved socialism as it requires Communism first which means that a few party heads have to get the system ready for Socialism but the few party heads usually get corrupted before they can hand the power to the people... (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... <some said that>)



              Singapore is the most nearest example.

              But there is no country in the world which rules by popular referenda to decide all policy, and hence there is no true democracy in the world.
              yes.... and a true democracy is not the capitalist one, it is a socialist one... sadly, achieveing this socialist democracy is probably close to impossible because of human nature... it gets corrupted...

              Singapore has 'democratic' (slang for courts, parliament, so on) institutions but it's infamously illiberal. You hang for bringing 15g of heroin, 30g of cocaine, or 500g of weed into the country, last time I heard.
              bad example... democracy is democracy... Liberal democracy is not necessarily better then Conservative democracy.. it just depends on how much the country is leaning towards a certain stance... A very liberal democracy leans towards anarchy... which isn't really the best; atleast in my opinion... and a very conservative democracy leans more towards the socialist scale... which again isn't too bright if you ask me... so you have to find a balance between the two...



              Socialism----------------------I---------------------Anarchy
              (Conservative<<<) (>>>Liberal)
              so thats basically the scale.... and now you can place whatever type of system on that scale... most nations aim for the centre point... not too anarchist... not too socialist...
              Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
              -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

              Comment


              • #67
                Monday, 7 August 2006, 10:35 GMT 11:35 UK

                Russia's state arms exporter has described US sanctions against it as an "unfriendly act" aimed at undermining the Russian defence industry.
                Rosoboronexport also denied that its dealings with Iran breached any international agreements.

                The US last week imposed sanctions on two Russian firms for allegedly passing on equipment to Iran that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

                Five other firms in North Korea, India and Cuba were also penalised.

                "The sanctions should be seen as nothing other than an unfriendly act against the Russian state and an attempt to destabilise its defence co-operation with foreign countries," a statement by Rosoboronexport said.

                It said the company's co-operation with Tehran was "carried out strictly in accordance with international agreements and is limited exclusively to supplies of defensive armaments".

                The other affected Russian company - aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi - earlier also denied the claims.

                Last week, Sukhoi's chairman Alexander Klementiev told the Russian radio station Moscow Echo that it had delivered nothing to Iran for at least six years.

                The Russian foreign ministry condemned the sanctions as a "clearly illegitimate" move.

                'Credible information'

                The US State Department announced the sanctions on Friday.

                It said the seven companies had broken US laws banning the sale to Tehran of equipment capable of helping the development of weapons of mass destruction.

                The US sanctions were ordered under the 2000 Iran Non-proliferation Act.

                They stop US firms working with affected companies.

                A state department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the sanctions were imposed after the US obtained "credible information" that the companies had transferred equipment or materials to Iran since 1 January 1999.

                "The sanctions apply to the specific entities and their successors, sub-units or subsidiaries and not to their respective countries or governments," the official told Reuters news agency.

                Moscow last year signed a deal worth $700m (Ł380m) to supply up to 30 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.

                The two Indian companies are Balaji Amines Ltd and Prachi Poly Products Ltd, both chemical manufacturers.

                The North Korean companies are Korean Mining and Industrial Development Corporation and Korea Pugang Trading Corporation, and the Cuban company is the Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 08 Aug 06,, 18:51.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #68
                  ...Russia's state arms exporter has described US sanctions against it as an "unfriendly act" aimed at undermining the Russian defence industry.
                  Lol. We could call selling arms to Iran and Venezuela "unfriendly acts" too.
                  Rosoboronexport also denied that its dealings with Iran breached any international agreements.
                  And we never said they did. Selling F-15's to Ukraine wouldn't violate International law either, but Russia would have a cow if we did it.

                  What will be interesting is what happens with the RRJ. Boeing can no longer partner with Sukhoi, and if Airbus tries step in, the sanctions could extend to EADS for doing business with Sukhoi. I doubt they would be willing to risk that for a regional jet project that may or may not ever see fruition.
                  "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    wasn't there some Chinese and an Austrian company also???
                    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tronic
                      wasn't there some Chinese and an Austrian company also???
                      Umm not sure I just picked that article off the wire about noon. :)
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        It was Russia, North Korea, and Cuba in this round.
                        "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tronic
                          actually its the other way around... Communism is suppose to be the road towards Socialism (the ultimate Utopia...).. but no one got past the Communism stage and hence Communism and Socialism only look good on paper...
                          According to Marxist theory, it's the other way around.

                          Primitive pre-civilisation >> Feudalism >> Capitalism >> Socialism >> Communism, where the state has 'withered' away.

                          You might be talking about another system, but we all know it was Marx which inspired the twentieth century version.

                          ofcourse... Sattelite states were extremely important for the Soviets... The Soviet Union didn't have the luxury of two oceans on either side so they relied heavily on sattelite states as an early warning system if they got invaded/nuked...
                          Great, and those satellite states had to pay the price with half a century of economic non-development.

                          But when the Majority is saying EVERYONE should be on an equal level...
                          Equality is not the only concern here.

                          whatever rights/freedoms (or lack of) the majority gets; the minority gets also... its not that the Majority is getting something the minority isn't...
                          You've misunderstood me. Say the national TV station is, of course, communally owned, so decisions must be comunal. It is within the democratic power to ban all anti-communist opinion.

                          After all, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not my phrase.

                          Then are you saying that the 10% of the population should still have the right to exploit the poor... i.e. use the country's treasury for personal gains rather then using it for the benefit of all the population???
                          Straw man. I believe in freedom, and if someone is being exploited in the truest sense, i.e. being coerced or defrauded out of their wealth, their freedom not to be so is being violated, and they should be protected. Like, a lot of the time, in liberal democracy and capitalism.

                          It's not the 'country's treasury', it's the treasury of he who owns the land and put the work in to extract it.

                          no... its not 51% of the population... on more heavy issues like this; usually a STRONG majority is required... like 75%-80%....
                          If 99.99% of the population vote to ban eating of watermelons on private property at 3.42am, is it right?

                          yes... but again you have to see.. the ORIGINAL version of Socialism is that the people choose... so basically a referendum for EVERY issue, no matter how big or small... but again like I said, no country has achieved socialism as it requires Communism first which means that a few party heads have to get the system ready for Socialism but the few party heads usually get corrupted before they can hand the power to the people... (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... <some said that>)
                          You have definitely got the order of Marxist historicism wrong, unless you're talking about another system.

                          yes.... and a true democracy is not the capitalist one, it is a socialist one... sadly, achieveing this socialist democracy is probably close to impossible because of human nature... it gets corrupted...
                          Precisely, which is why we have the rule of law and constitutions to constrain the majority.

                          bad example... democracy is democracy... Liberal democracy is not necessarily better then Conservative democracy.. it just depends on how much the country is leaning towards a certain stance... A very liberal democracy leans towards anarchy... which isn't really the best; atleast in my opinion... and a very conservative democracy leans more towards the socialist scale... which again isn't too bright if you ask me... so you have to find a balance between the two...
                          A very liberal democracy is one which protects rights to the greatest extent, but quite how that's anarchy is beyond me.

                          Notice how the freest countries in the world are also the most stable.

                          Socialism----------------------I---------------------Anarchy
                          (Conservative<<<) (>>>Liberal)
                          so thats basically the scale.... and now you can place whatever type of system on that scale... most nations aim for the centre point... not too anarchist... not too socialist...[/QUOTE]

                          Tyranny-------------------------------------------Liberalism

                          That's my scale, and anarchy is off it and in its own category because it's the complete absence of government. To protect freedom you need a very limited minarchist government, not no government, otherwise it's simply anarchism, where any governmental tyranny is replaced by unrestrained criminal tyranny.

                          Putting things on a mathematical scale is not wise in such situations.

                          By the way, interesting discussion. :)
                          HD Ready?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
                            The USA has a very mixed world record. USSR has a uniformly bad world record. Not relevant to Eastern Europe, or perhaps Japan.
                            Is the Russo-Japanese war relevant? A few years before the Axis began running rough shod over Europe & Asia, Russia and Japan had a short war, which Japan own.

                            For starters they were up against Russia, and it might not have helped that the last Czar started a propaganda campaign claiming it'd take two or three Japanese Soldiers to kill the average Russian, due to the size difference between the average russnyan & Japanese males.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Lunatock
                              Is the Russo-Japanese war relevant?
                              Considering that was 1905 and it was the Russian monarchy, who was ousted to give way to the USSR, by the USSR's progenitors, probably not.

                              I mentioned Japan because it was the original matter of the thread.
                              HD Ready?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
                                Considering that was 1905 and it was the Russian monarchy, who was ousted to give way to the USSR, by the USSR's progenitors, probably not.

                                I mentioned Japan because it was the original matter of the thread.
                                Well what about the archangel? A town in northern russnya that the US Army held through an entire winter, during the same revolution that ousted the last Czar.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X