Could it be that bush has some friends heavily invested in Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Chris M., Aug 28, 2007.

  1. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/898342.html

    Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has put Barack Obama's bill on divestment from Iran on hold, and sources involved in the matter said they believe he is doing so following a request from the Bush Administration. . . .

    The sources said, however, that the real motivation behind the step is that the Bush administration is concerned such legislation won't sit well with the international coalition partners, especially in Europe, that are badly needed if it wants to effectively tighten the sanctions against Iran. . . .

    The Obama bill would require the federal government to publish a list of companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector, which would be updated every six months.

    This list is supposed to be a tool, providing investors with the knowledge they need to divest from the right companies.

    It would also authorize local governments to actually divest their pension funds, or any other funds, from companies on the list. Fund managers would be protected from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision to divest.

    "The states need clarity on this issue, and this bill will give them such clarity," Obama told Haaretz in an interview when the initiative was announced.


    In the "real motivation" section, it would be interesting to know how many American energy companies would be affected by this, and what relationship those companies might have with the administration. I wonder if there are any that sat in on cheney's energy task force.
     
  2. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bush has oil interests in every nation on this globe. So the enrichment angle is a little weak without a little more proof.

    As for Mr Obama's divestment bill, it should be on hold. It's a terrible idea and has an awful track record. And let's be honest about who would suffer should such a bill take effect.
     
  3. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fund managers?
     
  4. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Average Joe Iran.
     
  5. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You gotta break some eggs . . .

    Unfortunately, average Joe South Africa suffered from sanctions in the short term as well but I think most would tell you it was worth it in the big picture.

    Frankly, I am surprised that your libertarian side would be offended by a bill that allows individuals to have more information before making decisions.
     
  6. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Would they? I know some issues have been resolved but many more have appeared since. It's safe to say that the suffering has become more evenly spread.

    If it was an equitable bill then yes, I would be in favor of it. I don't like the idea of targeting one nation. Certainly you will never see the same bill come up regarding Israel yet I can bet you that there is a percentage of people in this nation that would like to know if their investment money is funding the "zionist regime"

    I also don't like the fact that it is targeted at one industry. Energy companies seem to be the left's whipping boy du jour. And if this is about nuclear safety, there are plenty of other components to a reactor/bomb building facitity than just energy.
     
  7. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    1) Would they? Are you serious? Do you really think that anywhere near a majority of SAs would return to Apartheid if it meant a little more comfort?

    2) Well, last I checked bush had not yet added Israel into the axis of evil. :D Actually, I agree with you here. I would like to know more about companies with serious investment in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Yemen and others. Still, I don't know how more information regarding Iran can be a bad thing.
     
  8. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Cool! Lets stick it to the Iranian posters on these boards. I'll be waiting for them to come back with a claim that Iran invented economic sanctions.

    :D
     
  9. John Kevin W. Desk

    John Kevin W. Desk New Member

    Mar 5, 2007
    You know, if it were a white majority that had oppressed a black minority, this would have been reprehensible. As it is, it's just comedy.

    What happened to the guy that was ready to burn John Edwards at the stake over HIS investments?
     
  10. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No. But would you call South Africa a safer place now than before? It's been 20 years and now people are starting to lose their land due to their whiteness, not the other way around. SA is hardly a great example for how sanctions make a nation better. In fact I would argue that it super sped up the desegragation process to a speed that was not handlable by the people of SA, thus today's troubles. Not only that but don't you find it a bit hypocritical that the US, a nation who essentially had the same system 20 years prior was all high and mighty regarding segregation? I sure do.

    Plus for every South Africa you have an Iraq and a Cuba


    Only if it is equitable. Targeted laws like this hurt the people of that nation and our reputation in world opinion, something I believe that Obama is pretty keen on repairing.
     
  11. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not running for office nor am I saying anything hypocritical. Edwards profitted off of the misery of the people he is claiming to represent.

    Look, segregation is a bad thing but I don't think that sanctions were the correct remedy to the situation. IMO, South Africa should have dealt with their racial problems like we did without any outside interference.
     
  12. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Had they been allowed to do so, nothing would have changed.

    It is precisely the atrocities committed in the name of preserving segregation here in the USA that should have been a lesson against allowing segregationists anywhere else to work on their own time clock. That's what they want.
     
  13. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Weren't the gears for change already in motion before sanctions?

    Also

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
     
  14. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--

    Rest assured that the gears for resistance to that change were also in motion.

    And you are citing Wiki. Not saying that the particular point being made is incorrect, but those who colonize and those who descend from colonists aren't generally willing to cede power as readily as you're implying.
     
  15. Norsk Troll

    Norsk Troll Member+

    Sep 7, 2000
    Central NJ
    "I personally believe ... that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., or should help South Africa ... so we will be able to build up our future ... for our children."
     
  16. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I never said it would be an easy battle. Ones worth fighting rarely are. What I am saying is that sanctions are a poor and usually conterproductive tool for such a fight.

    In fact a cynical person (such as myself) could say that the only point of sanctions from a US government POV was for representitives to get black votes by "proving" their commitment to civil rights.
     
  17. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    I don't know that there's an absolute answer here, but I could not have supported simply continuing to allow South Africa to do business as usual. They'd have had no reason whatsoever to change.

    At the risk of being lablelled "obsessive", I'll provide info on a similar situation in the USA. Almost every forward step in the human rights movement in this country came because of sanctions of some sort. I recommend that you watch a short film called The Road to Brown if ever you get an opportunity. It's about an hour long, and describes in detail the economic repercussions of the cases that led to Brown (they were de facto sanctions). It also details the career of Justice Marshall's mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston, as he was the force behind many of those cases.

    The 16th street Baptist Church bombing was read about all over the world, and the fear of economic sanctions against the South were what began to make people change their outward behavior. It wasn't ever a case of anyone telling Southerners and other segregationists, "Man, you need to change your ways, but you can do it on your schedule". Again, that never works, for reasons you probably already know.

    The rest were made because the court system allowed people of color to argue cases outside the worst areas wrt segregation and affect change inside those areas. South Africa had no such regional differences.

    I won't argue against that at all. I have no problem believing that most of our elected representatives didn't care about ending apartheid.
     
  18. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Sorry, but when you hail the great progress made in iraq that occured during a parlimentary vacation and just in the nick of time for bush to show ANY political progress and don't question the sincerity of those involved, you have cashed in your ability to call yourself cynical.

    ;)
     
  19. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    At the risk of being labled contrarian, I think your example and the South Africa example are a touch different in the fact that economic sanctions in the south were carried out by individuals and organizations which in my opinion is cooler than cool to do. South African sanctions were put in place by a government.

    I'll concede your point on the court system but I still maintain that progress was in the works and I am fairly confident, as the de Klerk foundation that international sanctions did more harm than good.
     
  20. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm also cynical about ther people's cynicism :)
     
  21. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    What is the difference, and why on earth does it matter to you who does the sanctioning?

    I'd argue that a government sanction is likely to be obeyed by all the businesses within the governed country, while one proposed by individuals is likely to be ignored by people who either can profit from apartheid, don't care about dehumanization, or both.
     
  22. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's right. That's the difference.

    It's been proven over and over again that social change through cultural evolution is far more effective than social change through edict. A government sanction is the latter.
     
  23. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Then you would be damning all of Black and Brown South Africa to wait until the colonizers evolved enough to attempt to undo what they'd done, stop believing what they'd believed for generations.

    I'd suggest that that's not fair to those under the foot of apartheid or segregation, as some people don't want to evolve.
     
  24. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    So, in other words it would be cool for individuals and organizations to divest themselves from companies doing business in Iran, if only there were some mechanism out there to get that information into the public domain so that people could make that choice. . . .

    ;)
     
  25. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I know I would ;)
     

Share This Page