 navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | So? Its our internet, we should by all means use it as a political power tool as well. | |
|  | 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Re: So? The problem is many students and bloggers there are Pro-West, and by terminating contracts with outside ISP's that don't filter content, you're in essence silencing some bloggers from inside the country who would otherwise support Western causes. | |
| | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | People seem to have forgottenthe history of the Internet and the fact it was created by the U.S. Department of Defense. | |
| | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So? However, if I remember my history correctly, the US military has fully backed out of the internet (aside from accessing webpages at computer terminals) and it lies fully in the domain of civilian use.
Now, wiether or not it's been passed onto UN control, or made into global ownership however, is up to debate. | |
| | | | 
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
| Re: So? "A senior official in the Iranian ministry of Islamic guidance, which handles the media, accused the US government of breaching human rights by allegedly ordering the move..."
OH my, that was a tad dramatic! One would think we've gone and dumped our septic waste in their drinking water... I'm not too bright about business and contracts, but I'm assuming since the US is providing host service then they have the reserve to deny or refuse service. I'd like to think of it as this: if I committed some sort of infraction against my ISP or Web-hosting company, like say, not paying my bills then should I expect the service to be stopped? What can be said of BOMBING the country of that company? | |
| | | | | 
crazediamond
That's Dr. Craze to you
Premium
join:2002-01-19
Germantown, MD | Re: So? Iran complaining about the US breaching human rights, that's a good one.
Pot calling the kettle black? :P | |
| | | | | | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: So? said by crazediamond  :Iran complaining about the US breaching human rights, that's a good one. Pot calling the kettle black?  The iranian imans can go stuff It down a black hole, After all We know of Human Rights and Religious Tolerance, They don't know the meaning of the phrase nor practice, They do know terrorism and aren't to be trusted, As that government would Lie like a Persian rug, and that's what rugs do, They lie flat. As a government iran is a failure and They know It. Sure We did back the Shah, But backing someone doesn't mean We approved of what the person did that was wrong(Mostly ignorant about any torture, possibly), Khomeini was wrong about the West as the Western world wasn't His enemy or even evil, Just different and as such does not deserve to be hated. But from what I've seen on TV and read online This seems to be the attitude of part of the Muslim world, That intolerance/lies is the way to spread Islam, Usually by force, As that was how northern Africa was converted to Islam, By Jihad as in Convert or Die. The radicals in Islam would vaporize whole cities in the West or the Far East If They had Nuclear weapons and Osama Bin Laden I think has said as much. Do I hate Muslims? No. Am I a Muslim? No. Do I think Islam needs to grow up and stop being a being a brat? Yes. Is Osama Bin Laden a Freedom Fighter? No. He's a mass murderer, Yet in the Muslim world He's a celebrity/hero now as that is how They see Him as and They think New York, Washington DC & PA was a Jewish conspiracy. | |
| | | | | | | idledsl
join:2005-01-24
San Francisco, CA | Re: So? We know human rights and religious tolerance???
Ask any freedom loving, tax paying, gay American.
A group totally being denied religious freedom. | |
| | | | | | | |
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: So? said by idledsl :We know human rights and religious tolerance??? Ask any freedom loving, tax paying, gay American. A group totally being denied religious freedom. It's a lot better here than in like say Saudi Arabia, Where being Gay will get Your head chopped off. And I said Religious Tolerance, Gays are treated badly cause of bigotry, I'm not Gay at all and cause I'm not married and have no kids some when I was Younger thought I was, I like women very much. But what women would want a nearly 400lb. guy with arthritis, joint problems, anxiety and concentration problems? Heck We know what the NAZI Party did to Jews, Gays and the Disabled in WWII, They were all either Gassed or burned alive in buildings or shot.... | |
| | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by idledsl :We know human rights and religious tolerance??? Ask any freedom loving, tax paying, gay American. A group totally being denied religious freedom. I thought we were just denying them tax breaks, adoption in certain states, and promoting bible-thumping persecution? Religion, however, isn't something that's currently being denied. Sure, there are certain sects of religion that would sooner pin you to the cross than let you worship, but there are more accepting chapters in most any popular religion today.
I personally feel like anyone should be allowed into any religious observation who really wants to be there, but of course my own personal opinion means didly squat when the person in charge wants to plaster "NO QUEERS" to their chapel/temple/kiosk/etc. | |
| | | | | | 
lyls
@tele.dk | guantanamo.... that sums it up 8) | |
| | | 
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa
 ·Bell Sympatico
| said by ropeguru :People seem to have forgottenthe history of the Internet and the fact it was created by the U.S. Department of Defense. You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there.. we just couldn't use it.
Besides, just cause the telephone was created by a Canadian (yes, I think Canada deserves the pride for Bell's telephone), doesn't mean we own the telephony technology. | |
| | | |
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
| Re: So? said by Sean :You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there. huh? | |
| | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So? said by AtomicZero : said by Sean :You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there. huh? And lo, on the 8th day, God said, "I need pr0n and warez," and he smote his keyboard thusly...and the internet was created, and it was good.  | |
| | | | | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
| Re: So? said by Thaler : said by AtomicZero : said by Sean :You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there. huh? And lo, on the 8th day, God said, "I need pr0n and warez," and he smote his keyboard thusly...and the internet was created, and it was good. ROTFL | |
| | | | | | | 
trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: So? said by noone1 : said by Thaler : said by AtomicZero : said by Sean :You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there. huh? And lo, on the 8th day, God said, "I need pr0n and warez," and he smote his keyboard thusly...and the internet was created, and it was good. ROTFL Oh thats good:D | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA | Re: So? That would be the 9th day, when it was discovered that we needed little blue pills to properly enjoy our new-found internet glories. ^_^ | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Thaler : said by AtomicZero : said by Sean :You can't really say the internet was "created," it was discovered. It was always there. huh? And lo, on the 8th day, God said, "I need pr0n and warez," and he smote his keyboard thusly...and the internet was created, and it was good. And who is the patron saint of the internet? Or did Bill Gates "donate" for that right? | |
| | 
aSic
application specific
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs:
| It hasnt been our internet for many years now.
The issue now is if we (the US) keep doing stuff like this, it wouldnt surprise me in a few years that the rest of the world just up and "cuts us off" for something similar. :/
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | irc.removed.us #dslr | Starband SRS m360 GE4 C4/S69 | Win2003/DualNIC | 802.11b | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: So? said by aSic :it wouldnt surprise me in a few years that the rest of the world just up and "cuts us off" for something similar. :/ Let them try, we'll see how well "the rest of the world" responds to the next major natural disaster.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | | | | | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
| Re: So? said by JTRockville :"The rest of the world" responded quite generously to the most recent major natural disaster. Australia: $764 million Germany: $661 million Japan: $500 million Kinda dwarfs the US contribution, eh? My guess is, "the rest of the world" would get along just fine without the US. And how much did the US military spend in helping move aid and in rescue missions, etc? If you put a price tag on that, it alone would dwarf all of the formentioned contributions; let alone the dollars we gave out in government and private donations and no other country in the world has the ability to react as quickly as we did. Simple fact, more dollars flow out of the US for outside aid, education, housing, food, etc to outside countries (beyond disaster help) then the top 10 nations combine. Yet this might change, the US is turning isoltionistic, and the perceived (probably justifiably) thanklessness and near slander by many is not helping. The rest of the world would not get along just fine if the US closed up and became ultra isolationists. In fact, the world economy would collapse into utter ruin. | |
| | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: So? You are 100% correct, without our troops again making the sacrifice to go and get all the other aid flowing many more people would be dying because of the disaster. You didn't see any other countries step up and actually put the men and women on the ground who could get the ball rolling. Again, we save the day.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | | | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
| Re: So? said by pnh102 :You are 100% correct, without our troops again making the sacrifice to go and get all the other aid flowing many more people would be dying because of the disaster. You didn't see any other countries step up and actually put the men and women on the ground who could get the ball rolling. Again, we save the day. Actualy, there were several county's militaries that did help out, just thier numbers were very small but usualy highly train specialists. Most militaries, as a whole, are not as professional as the US nor do they have the heavy lift capablities nor the dollar resources. | |
| | | | | | | claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| said by pnh102 : You didn't see any other countries step up and actually put the men and women on the ground who could get the ball rolling. If you did not see them it is because you were only watching US TV and only reading US newspapers. Duh. | |
| | | | | | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by pnh102 :You are 100% correct, without our troops again making the sacrifice to go and get all the other aid flowing many more people would be dying because of the disaster. You didn't see any other countries step up and actually put the men and women on the ground who could get the ball rolling. Again, we save the day. We weren't the only country to contributed people, equipment, and money.
Even with our recently updated total of $650 (military+dollars), we were third. If we compare our per capita contribution to that of other countries, I doubt we'd come out that high. I'm not trying to diminish our contribution, but we weren't the most generous.
I certainly wouldn't advocate that other countries "cut us off", but like aSic , it wouldn't surprise me. | |
| | | | | | | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
| Re: So? said by JTRockville :Even with our recently updated total of $650 (military+dollars), we were third. If we compare our per capita contribution to that of other countries, I doubt we'd come out that high. I'm not trying to diminish our contribution, but we weren't the most generous. How is it your are not diminishing our contributions? The whole per capita misinformation typical of the wealth redistributionists is completely about trying to -minimize- what our government and people have given in an attempt to say "They gave more then you."
You said prior...
said by JTRockville : ... Kinda dwarfs the US contribution, eh? My guess is, "the rest of the world" would get along just fine without the US. Again, you are trying to diminish our contributions by saying "the rest of the world would get along fine without the US." The $550 to $650 mill from the US gov and people does -not- include the millitary assistance of over 12,000 personnel, 21 ships, and multitude of cago planes and helicopters. Also, 20% or so of the cost the UN is facing with the effort is paid for by our country.
Also, lets add some perspective here. Simple fact, more dollars flow out of the US for outside aid, education, housing, food, etc to outside countries (beyond disaster help) then the top 10 nations combine. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
1 edit | Re: So? said by JTRockville : Other countries did give more than us! So if we'd given nothing, the rest of the would would have compensated. Sure, we gave a lot. But we need to keep our generosity in perspective. Just a hunch, but I don't think the rest of the world believes they're as indebted to us, as we'd like to think. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the world "cut us off". 1. In the first critical two weeks, it was the US military that shouldered the burden. Let me get this through to you, no other country in the world has the capacity to do what we did in the first two weeks. It required a sinlge, unified force that was already cohesive, not a small force from multiple countries with different training, languages, tactics, command chains, radio frequences, etc. There is/are no country(ies) that could have compensated.
2. I never said we were the most generous for this one event, I said we are, by the far, most generous overall.
3. The rest of the world has cut us off, they are either indifferent or like leaches to us.
"Nations do not have friends, they have interests." DeGaulle
There is nothing wrong with point three. You can please some of the people, some of the time, but you cant please all of the people, all of the time. | |
| | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| Seems to me you spoke too soon. The US is going to double their contributions up to around $650 million in aid.
»www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/0···dex.html
That plus the military contributions put any countries efforts to shame. | |
| | | | | | claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
1 edit | Re: So? As far as I understand, the $650 million does include the military contributions. And probably some will be expended through contracts to the usual defense contractors.
Back to the main topic, historically freedom has been promoted by promoting the channels of free speech, not by shutting them down. This looks like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. | |
| | | | | 
Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: So? I have zero tolerance for terrorists and those who help them. | |
| | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| said by navalpatel :Its our internet, we should by all means use it as a political power tool as well. I agree. I'm still wondering why all the islamo-fascist websites that aired the beheading videos weren't DDOS'ed seconds after their releases.
Granted, I'm amazed and appalled at a lot of stuff.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
Kazaa Is Spyware. Gator / Claria Is Spyware.
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 2785 | |
| | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: So? said by Nerdtalker : said by navalpatel :Its our internet, we should by all means use it as a political power tool as well. I agree. I'm still wondering why all the islamo-fascist websites that aired the beheading videos weren't DDOS'ed seconds after their releases. Granted, I'm amazed and appalled at a lot of stuff. because it's harder to get a large group of people pissed off if they can't see what is the catalyst. | |
| | | | 
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Re: So? No, because the owners of such tools really couldn't give a fuck. Sure, sympathy for what's going on. But it doesn't really affect them, aside from insults hurled during CS frag sessions. Think Joe Pirate gives a shit about politics? No freakin' way. Keep the data coming, and keep offline issues out of my sight.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | I wonder how useful "our internet" would be if it wasn't for a certain Finnish programmer? Or how useful it would be if other worldwide contributors were denied access to "our internet"?
And I thought China had a closed mind about things.
Now, if the country a business mainly operates in is told by that government to do something, that is one thing...but this has nothing to do with who the "Internet" supposedly belongs to.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| 
IGGY
No Guru Just Here To Help
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL
1 edit | Maybe this is an issue because we are being two faced. And not giving the rights to others that we supposedly value. If we are truly wanting to help others have freedom. Shouldn't we do our best not restrict the voices of those who are trying to express their right to free expression. I agree their can be a fine line between free expression and terrorism at times. Having to judge where that line is crossed can be hard. But if America is truly free. Why should we be blocked from reading the thoughts of other citizens of the world? And why should they be silenced? This seems to be similar to what China does to it's population. I thought we as a nation were supposed to be against this type of thing. You can't get foreign email using Verizon. Your not going to be able to view some nations websites - even though they may not be controversial or support terrorism in any way. Has 1984 started to slip in a decade or two late?
"OH my, that was a tad dramatic! One would think we've gone and dumped our septic waste in their drinking water"
So your saying people that are being persecuted should have no voice? Those who are living in conditions that the world should know about. The world should not be allowed to learn of this? We should censor all forms of media? How do we know that if these people were able to gain host elsewhere. That we still wouldn't be blocked from reading the content? Why should we have to take steps such as proxies etc. Just to read others views. We shouldn't have to. This approach in the end will not make the world a safer place.
--
Test Your Security
Cable Diagnostics
Iggyz Blog ZoneAlarm Help | |
| | |
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
2 edits | Re: So? said by IGGY :Maybe this is an issue because we are being two faced. And not giving the rights to others that we supposedly value. In this particular instance, I'll have to admit, I am very ambivalent. From the business and pragmatic point of view, I say yes. Block them off, and frankly THEY ARE NOT SUFFERING!!! they just don't have access to certain sites. Any [wo]man with half a purpose in life will be able to circumvent that, and if they can't well tough cookies because for right now for our national security we can have people sending terrorist memos to each other [any ideas on how O'sama kept in touch with his kamikaze pilots?] So I am for cutting it...but obviously not permanently, we would need to find a solution fast. However, babies aren't gonna die from it so let's not go elevating the situation to levels that simply don't warrant it. What next the PANDEMIC issue of their kids receiving last years gameboy?
We should censor all forms of media? How do we know that if these people were able to gain host elsewhere. That we still wouldn't be blocked from reading the content? America's been censoring media since DAY 1, personally I don't agree with it - when people die they leave dead bodies...and btw women have breasts- However, the US govt's alleged involvement in this situation would not be for censorship reason's it is a matter of supposed safety.
What I am wary of is what type of precedent does this establish, and if such practices were applied externally, will they gradually move inward? The repercussions of shutting down certain domestic sites for being deemed too inflammatory or threatening would be alarming | |
| | | | | 
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA | Hmmm Edison made light bulbs ... lets prevent people from using them. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the ISP had a hosting contract with this website, by closing the site that didnt violate their TOS they are in breach of contract. the US government cant end private contracts far as im concerned in the ISP should have told the feds to go F themselves and come back with a court order.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| 
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | Cuba Is this the same thing as the American embargo against Cuba? | |
| | | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Derch :Is this the same thing as the American embargo against Cuba? The only reason we keep the embargo against Cuba is to placate the Cubans living in Florida that hate Castro. The only thing the embargo does is give Castro a scapegoat to deflect blame. "The reason some things suck around here is because the evil Americans are keeping us down." If we lifted the embargo, Castro would (eventually) collapse under his own weight. | |
| 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits |  Facts don't support allegations yet
The Iranian Student News Agency said no explanation had been given by the server, called The Planet, for its abrupt move to terminate the contract. And if they did make a request, the ISP has the right to challenge that in court. Right now these are mere allegations and nothing else. Lets wait for facts before making accusations. Maybe the ISP wasn't getting paid?
Oh, and I get a kick out of the Iranian gov't employee claiming internet access is a Human Rights issue.
A senior official in the Iranian ministry of Islamic guidance, which handles the media, accused the US government of breaching human rights by allegedly ordering the move. This is the same Iranian department that shuts down all press in Iran that questions the mullahs godlike authority.
And even if the US Gov't has asked ISP's to stop doing business with IRAN, then that is because IRAN is on a list of terrorist countries no US company is to be doing business with.
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: Facts don't support allegations yet said by TKJunkMail :No facts have been brought to light that the ISP has cut off Iranian server at US Gov't request. But the link in the article above to the GoDaddy announcement suggests that GoDaddy (at least) will not do business with such countries and that their action is obligated by their interpretation of US Govt policy. | |
| | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Facts don't support allegations yet said by DonLibes :But the link in the article above to the GoDaddy announcement suggests that GoDaddy (at least) will not do business with such countries and that their action is obligated by their interpretation of US Govt policy. If that is the case, too bad for the Iranians. I am sure France will be more than willing to host terrorist governments web sites. | |
| | | |
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA | Re: Facts don't support allegations yet So when do you plan on returning the Statue of Liberty? | |
| | | | |
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Facts don't support allegations yet said by click_310 :So when do you plan on returning the Statue of Liberty? You have to reach back that far to find something good that the French did? | |
| |
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
| said by TKJunkMail :Oh, and I get a kick out of the Iranian gov't employee claiming internet access is a Human Rights issue. A senior official in the Iranian ministry of Islamic guidance, which handles the media, accused the US government of breaching human rights by allegedly ordering the move. Isn't that just the best? Iranian Melodrama at it's best.  | |
| rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| US law... US Law bars financial transactions with a handful of countries. Libya was recently removed from that list but North Korea and Iran are still on that list. What this law means is that you cannot do any business with any company or organization based in those countries. This includes hosting their website. This is nothing new people. Let the Iranian company find some hosting in europe. | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| This isn't about "ownership" of the Internet Agreed. This isn't a dispute about "ownership of the Internet." This is a dispute about what conduct is permissible by corporations registered, based, or using facilities in the US.
The US Government has determined that certain types of transactions are forbidden because they aid terrorism. Some of these are banking transactions--but this doesn't mean that other companies in other countries won't undertake these banking transactions, nor does it mean that the US Government is claiming ownership of the worldwide banking system.
Likewise, when certain Internet-related transactions are banned by the US government, it doesn't mean that offshore hosts won't provide the services, or that the US is claiming ownership of the Internet.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| |
IranianGuy
@ubc.ca
| Re: US law... No. Like I wrote earlier, the embargo isn't all inclusive. There is limited trade b/w the two countries. Iran's exports to the US are in 100s of million, imports are in tens. It was never intended to cut all ties, such would be damaging to the US and unreasonable. The law has also been eased to allow publication of manuscripts: U.S persons (natural and legal) are "authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers [...] in paper or electronic format."
ISNA, the news agency that was affected, does only that. It pulishes mostly domestic news. TP's failure to account for its actions need to be throughly inspected. | |
| oldhand
Premium
join:2003-05-16
Saugus, MA
| Dumb move? This seems like a dumb move on the part of the U.S. government. In addition to creating worldwide PR problems, it also pushes the servers off-shore, which probably means that they would have a harder time monitoring the traffic if they ever found a valid national-security reason to do so. | |
| | | | Sunburn
join:2000-10-05
Denver, CO
| Re: Dumb move? said by oldhand :This seems like a dumb move on the part of the U.S. government. In addition to creating worldwide PR problems, it also pushes the servers off-shore, which probably means that they would have a harder time monitoring the traffic if they ever found a valid national-security reason to do so. Who really cares about the so called "PR" problem? It’s not like the only reason for our existence is to win a popularity contest? I know some of you think that is what life it is all about...but please, get a grip on your shallowness!
These a-holes are going to hate you no matter what you think, say or do. You can get down on your knees and bend over all you want in an attempt to appease all, but please leave the USA’s role out of your sick fantasy. | |
| | |
IranianGuy
@ubc.ca
| Re: Dumb move? Who really cares about the so called "PR" problem? It’s not like the only reason for our existence is to win a popularity contest? I know some of you think that is what life it is all about...but please, get a grip on your shallowness!
These a-holes are going to hate you no matter what you think, say or do. You can get down on your knees and bend over all you want in an attempt to appease all, but please leave the USA’s role out of your sick fantasy.
You are very naive. The PR problem is very important, not because being popular make you feel good, but because being unpopular impedes your ability to interact on a global basis.
BTW, I don't know what a*holes you are talking about, but the average Iranian user is not much different from the anyone else. People and spread of information are affected by these moves, and that matters. | |
| | | | Sunburn
join:2000-10-05
Denver, CO
| Re: Dumb move? said by IranianGuy:You are very naive. The PR problem is very important, not because being popular make you feel good, but because being unpopular impedes your ability to  .
BTW, I don't know what a*holes you are talking about, but the average Iranian user is not much different from the anyone else. People and spread of information are affected by these moves, and that matters.
LoL,
Who said I ever wanted to interact with anybody on a global basis in that way? And what makes you think this would change anything? All anybody ever wants to do is screw the other side....It is all about self interest and that is the ONLY thing that matters in the REAL WORLD. Tell me it boils down to something else and I will call you NAIVE! Ha! It is not that hard to figure out…..
The only reason the USA is in your face is so we can USE you to extend our self-interest, Duh? The only reason someone will go along with the USA is because they think they can screw us for their own benefit. No they don't give a f**k about the USA and our feelings....they only want a piece for themselves.
No, my friend...popularity has nothing to do with these wheels... If you knew anything about what Governs the powerful then you would understand that the only thing that greases the wheels is anything that can further their self interest. Has nothing to do with popularity, it is all about greed and instinct.
You may want to fantasize about the USA bending over for everyone else to take a stab at...but in the end it is not going to matter one way or the other...we are greeted with spit in the face after a kind gesture every time and I am fed up with this bs.
The world is governed by the aggressive use of force and we are in a competition to dominate u with our culture and FYI to the IGNORANT: EVERYONE else is playing the same game. You are never going to feel good about that They just want us to roll over so they can take our place...replace our democracy and freedom with socilism/slavery, religious law, etc...and you think I’m Naive? Lol time for a wake up call suXorz..YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE!!
...and the A-holes I am talking about include anyone who has a bitch about the "great satan". I mean take a look in the mirror you f**Kin hypocrites.
So in my closing words I just have this to say:
F**k human nature and f**k all of YOU in the international community! Only the smartest and most aggressive win and establish their culture/genes/society... It is called EVOLUTION you fools and it has been going on since the beginning of time! No, history did not begin when we woke up! Lol, and it sure as hell will not end when we die!!! | |
| 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| . US Gov is becoming more and more like it's enemies. I hope the world will draw a line somwehere...
Hitler thought he can fight the rest of the world but he was wrong and he learned that lesson the hard way, I hope we will learn it some other way...
--
anon43@gmail.com | |
| |
See 16 replies to this post | |
siradrian
join:2005-01-24
Tucson, AZ | Well. . . The comparisons to Hitler are over the top, in myopinion, and the U.S government being involved is speculation. ISPs monitor boards and pages they host, perhaps they saw something that was questionable on one of the sites. | |
| | 
guhuna
R.I.P Mike
Premium
join:2001-03-31
Brentwood, CA | Re: Well. . . Exactly, but everyone always jumps the gun and says we are doing it because we are dictators. | |
| | | siradrian
join:2005-01-24
Tucson, AZ
| Re: Well. . . I don't see us as dictators as much as we are perhaps "busy bodies". Dictator is not applicable, by a long shot.
I'm just saying, let's not see a villain where there is none. Iranian sources blamed the US government. Just like some Middle Eastern news stations blamed the US for the tsunami disaster. | |
| 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
| It's called an embargo "Mr. Clinton, the President of the United States, issued Executive Order 12959, effective May 7, 1995, prohibiting almost all trade and investment between the United States and Iran, subject to the issue of licenses by the U.S. Treasury Department. The prohibition includes exports of all goods, technology or services from the United States to Iran, imports of goods or services of Iranian origin into the United States and transactions by affiliates of United States enterprises."
I don't see why they would be surprised. | |
| |
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Re: It's called an embargo Nicely said, minus the misguided vitriol of so many previous posters of this thread. I myself know little about the politics involved, and could care less.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| 
dml_68
He Who Laughs Last Thinks Slowest.
join:2002-01-09
Vancouver, WA
| This is the Law that allows the US to do this EXECUTIVE ORDER -12959
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 8, 1995
EXECUTIVE ORDER -12959
PROHIBITING CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 505 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9) (ISDCA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, in order to take steps with respect to Iran in addition to those set forth in Executive Order No. 12957 of March 15, 1995, to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States referred to in that order, hereby order:
Section 1. The following are prohibited, except to the extent provided in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order:
(a) the importation into the United States, or the financing of such
importation, of any goods or services of Iranian origin, other than
Iranian-origin publications and materials imported for news publications or news broadcast dissemination
(b) except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)), the exportation from the United States to Iran, the Government of Iran, or to any entity owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, or the financing of such exportation, of any goods, technology (including technical data or other information subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 768-799 (1994) (the "EAR")), or services
(c) the reexportation to Iran, the Government of Iran, or to any entity
owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, of any goods or
technology (including technical data or other information) exported from the United States, the exportation of which to Iran is subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect immediately prior to the issuance of this order, unless, for goods, they have been (i) substantially transformed outside the United States, or (ii) incorporated into another product outside the United States and constitute less than 10 percent by value of that product exported from a third country
(d) except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)), any transaction, including purchase, - actions, by a United States person relating to goods or services of Iranian origin or owned or controlled by the Government of Iran
(e) any new investment by a United States person in Iran or in property (including entities) owned or controlled by the Government of Iran
(f) the approval or facilitation by a United States person of the entry into or performance by an entity owned or controlled by a United States person of a transaction or contract (i) prohibited as to United States persons by subsection (c), (d), or (e) above, or (ii) relating to the financing of activities prohibited as to United States persons by those subsections, or of a guaranty of another person's performance of such transaction or contract and
(g) any transaction by any United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint
venture, corporation, or other organization+ADs-
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen,
permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States
(d) the term "Iran" means the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements and
(e) the term "new investment" means (i) a commitment or contribution of funds or other assets, or (ii) a loan or other extension of credit.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the requirement of reports, including reports by United States persons on oil transactions engaged in by their foreign affiliates with Iran or the Government of Iran, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and ISDCA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize the exportation or reexportation to Iran, the Government of Iran, or an entity owned or controlled by the Government of Iran of any goods, technology, or services subject to export license application requirements of another agency of the United States Government, if authorization of the exportation or reexportation by that agency would be prohibited by law.
Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order No. 12613 of October 29, 1987, and sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order No. 12957 of March 15, 1995, are hereby revoked to the extent inconsistent with this order. Otherwise, the provisions of this order supplement the provisions of Executive Orders No. 12613 and 12957.
Sec. 6. Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any - talities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Sec. 7. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.
Sec. 8. (a) This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, on May 7, 1995, except that (i) section 1(b), (c), and (d) of this order shall not apply until 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, on June 6, 1995, to trade transactions under contracts in force as of the date of this order if such transactions are authorized pursuant to Federal regulations in force immediately prior to the date of this order ("existing trade contracts"), and (ii) letters of credit and other financing agreements with respect to existing trade contracts may be performed pursuant to their terms with respect to underlying trade transactions occurring prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, on June 6, 1995. (b) This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 6, 1995. | |
| | KONG4
join:2002-04-05
Tampa, FL | Re: This is the Law that allows the US to do this One of the things Clinton did I approve of was this.
And you Bush haters are criticising the government for enforcing an executive order issued by your most revered leader of democratic policy | |
| | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: This is the Law that allows the US to do this said by KONG4 : One of the things Clinton did I approve of was this. And you Bush haters are criticising the government for enforcing an executive order issued by your most revered leader of democratic policy they're criticising the idiot for leading us like lemmings into another pointless war. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: This is the Law that allows the US to do this said by morbo :they're criticising the idiot for leading us like lemmings into another pointless war. Damnit, when are all these losers going to move to some other country already.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | |
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
| Re: This is the Law that allows the US to do this said by pnh102 : said by morbo :they're criticising the idiot for leading us like lemmings into another pointless war. Damnit, when are all these losers going to move to some other country already. Right after you go to Iraq and do your part instead of ranting here.  | |
| | c0mmander
join:2001-10-03 | The Halliburton State Cheney should pull some strings and have Halliburton host their website.
He supported skirting US laws as CEO of Halliburton to do business with Iran. | |
| | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: The Halliburton State He did? Put up or shut up. | |
| | | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: The Halliburton State None of those links said anything about Cheney supporting the skirting of US laws. I'm still waiting. | |
| idledsl
join:2005-01-24
San Francisco, CA
|  Free to Conform
| |
| | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: Free to Conform All i have to say to this is | |
|
IranianGuy
@ubc.ca
| What sanctions? The recent changes to the embargo law state: U.S persons (natural and legal) are "authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers [...] in paper or electronic format." This was done after Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace) couldn't publish her memoire in the State.
So TP has to make it clear why they have terminated their relationship with Iranian clients. | |
| 
jsullvn
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Lansdale, PA | Too bad....... Funny, the Mullahs in Iran are soooo upset over this when they go to great lengths to censor, and prohibit internet use in their own country....too bad! | |
| | | |
|
Iran, U.S. Cyber Dispute
