See "Iranum" for free

[Mike Renzulli]

My Objectivist club showed this film on Thursday. As it turns out you can watch "Iranium" for free on Hulu. See this movie, friends. After doing so you will better understand why we have to go to war with Iran.

[Greybird]

They couldn't pay me enough to waste the bandwidth to stream that piece of neoconservative agitprop. Thank you, though, for confirming reports that it insists upon a war "we" — the denizens of an Empire we can discard whenever we gain the courage to want to do so — do not, in fact, "have to" fight.

The evidence for this last being copious and available from all manner of Net sources, if one is willing to not be led blindly around at nose-tip by the likes of Netan-yahoo, the Horowitzes, or the Kristols.

I know that such a response is pointless, given the fervor for war-paint and remotely-incited mass slaughter endemic to all Objectivist sites. Nonetheless, I'm in a feisty mood tonight, and had to at least register my dissent.

[sjw]

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I'm no expert on history but I know when I'm getting a biased account.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Mike, please tell us what it is about and summarize the case it makes before the boobirds pounce instantly. Otherwise your post is swamped instantly with the opposed view.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

The evidence for this last being copious and available from all manner of Net sources, if one is willing to not be led blindly around at nose-tip by the likes of Netan-yahoo, the Horowitzes, or the Kristols.

Are we an anti-semite today? Surely there must be Goyim who beat the drums of War and Empire, but you do not see fit to mention them. Why?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

Of course, Phil. "Iranium" documents the Iranian nuclear program that the regime is pursuing and the threat it poses not only for the U.S. but also for the middle east as well. It also discusses U.S. foreign policy with regards to the country and how Presidents since Jimmy Carter have misunderstood the intent of the Iranian regime.

If there was a film that clearly documents a country that has openly been at war with the U.S. and has taken measures to fulfill it's threats I don't know what does. You will see not only the threat that Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology poses to the rest of the world but also the deception on the part of Iranian theocrats and the regimes support of terrorist groups like Hamas as well as al-Quaeda terrorists who flew jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

None of the actions of the part of the regime were the result of backlash from U.S. foreign policy but, as the film clearly demonstrates, the apocalyptic vision Iranian theocrats (like Mahmoud Ahmedinajad) subscribe to. The most frightening thing is that Iranian regime isn't deterred by mutual assured destruction (MAD), it is what they are hoping for.

Mike, please tell us what it is about and summarize the case it makes before the boobirds pounce instantly. Otherwise your post is swamped instantly with the opposed view.

[Mike Renzulli]

The U.S.'s actions during that time were completely justified.

I think that the rumblings on the part of the opposition to the Shah were the result of actions mainly by the U.S.S.R. hoping to have an ally on its southern border. Technicaly the U.S. was at war (albeit "cold") with the U.S.S.R. in which it was the Soviets supporting overthrowing the Shah and supporting Mossadegh and the people allied with him.

As near as I have been able to figure out the Islamists also wanted the Shah out because of the secularism and capitalism he embraced. Fortunately, the U.S. halted both side's advance by reinstating him.

He was one of our best allies in that region at the time and that anti-Semitic bastard Jimmy Carter withdrew his support naively thinking that Khomeini and his cohorts would be better for the country.

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I'm no expert on history but I know when I'm getting a biased account.

Shayne

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Of course, Phil. "Iranium" documents the Iranian nuclear program that the regime is pursuing and the threat it poses not only for the U.S. but also for the middle east as well. It also discusses U.S. foreign policy with regards to the country and how Presidents since Jimmy Carter have misunderstood the intent of the Iranian regime.

It does not identify all of the factors creating this intent. Importantly, it does not even mention how the US helped to overthrow a democratically-elected leader of Iran to install and support a dictator. Now, if Iran had done that to the US, do you think we might have some kind of lasting hatred toward Iran?

I'm not saying this is the whole story either. But it is an important part that shouldn't be ignored. If the US has wronged anyone in the past, it should take responsibility, and try to arrive at solutions that de-escalate the situation it helped create. I'm not suggesting we should ignore dangerous enemies even if we did in some measure help create them. But we should be engaging in an open diplomacy, that lays all the facts and all the history on the table, and also lays out all the proper principles that should have been and should be in play, express our intent to try to make things right, and call on Iran to do the same. If in that context Iran takes hostile action, then I would advocate decisive US action.

But the situation as it stands is muddled because of our own unjust actions. There is only the brute fact that yes, we have an enemy, and yes, it is a concern when Iran has nuclear capability. To un-muddle the situation is actually very easy, but it does require a commitment to the true and the good, and that does seem to be a difficult thing for US politicians (and the populace, and Objectivists) to swallow.

Shayne

[sjw]

FYI: It is not "anti-Semitic" to be opposed to stealing money from US taxpayers and sending it over to Israel. The US government's job is to defend US citizens, not to prop up foreign states.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

FYI: It is not "anti-Semitic" to be opposed to stealing money from US taxpayers and sending it over to Israel. The US government's job is to defend US citizens, not to prop up foreign states.

Shayne

I agree. But the three specific names given were the names of Jews. I asked if there are any Gentiles guilty of the same offense and why weren't they named also.

And even when named, they were used as categories: The Horowitzes? The Kristols? Are these generic classes of people? Rascally Jews whispering their lies to poor befuddled Gentiles in power?

Why single out Jews? Fur sonderbehandlung?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 27, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

FYI: It is not "anti-Semitic" to be opposed to stealing money from US taxpayers and sending it over to Israel. The US government's job is to defend US citizens, not to prop up foreign states.

Shayne

I agree. But the three specific names given were the names of Jews. I asked if there are any Gentiles guilty of the same offense and why weren't they named also.

Why single out Jews? Fur sonderbehandlung?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I was just making a general comment and didn't intend to reply to you specifically. It seems that whenever anyone suggests that the US should focus on the US then they get called "anti-Semitic" by the neocons.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

My Objectivist club showed this film on Thursday. As it turns out you can watch "Iranium" for free on Hulu. See this movie, friends. After doing so you will better understand why we have to go to war with Iran.

http://www.hulu.com/...nium#s-p1-so-i0

Ah, war. My blood tingles in anticipation once again. I'll be 67 on March 28 so I'll have to enlist right away or they won't take me. BPH might be a limiting factor, but I'll just get an external catheter. I'll have to shoot right-handed as the left side vision isn't what it used to be. I know I can do it because in basic training in 1964 the left eye was 20/40 and when I shot for qualification it started raining so I calmly put my wet glasses in my breast pocket while the target was popping up, picked up my gun--pardon me: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for fighting, this is for fun"--and in one fluid motion put the M-14 to my right shoulder and fired off a shot. "I don't know how you did that," the sergeant said. "Did what?" I replied. "Hit that target." I didn't either. I finished up shooting right-handed all the way as it kept raining.

If I had a choice I wouldn't do this, but I don't, because, you see, I am of the "we" and "we have to go to war with Iran."

--Brant

here I come, run, run, run

no, I didn't watch the video more than a few minutes

Edited February 27, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Ah, war. My blood tingles in anticipation once again. I'll be 67 on March 28 so I'll have to enlist right away or they won't take me. BPH might be a limiting factor, but I'll just get an external catheter. I'll have to shoot right-handed as the left side vision isn't what it used to be. I know I can do it because in basic training in 1964 the left eye was 20/40 and when I shot for qualification it started raining so I calmly put my wet glasses in my breast pocket while the target was popping up, picked up my gun--pardon me: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for fighting, this is for fun"--and in one fluid motion put the M-14 to my right shoulder and fired off a shot. "I don't know how you did that," the sergeant said. "Did what?" I replied. "Hit that target." I didn't either. I finished up shooting right-handed all the way as it kept raining.

If I had a choice I wouldn't do this, but I don't, because, you see, I am of the "we" and "we have to go to war with Iran."

--Brant

here I come, run, run, run

no, I didn't watch the video more than a few minutes

[Philip Coates]

I'm currently teaching an adult education thinking and problem solving course. The following proposition is crystal clear to anyone who follows current events at all closely:

Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us.

Yet, when liberals or advocates of diplomacy talk about this issue, they refuse to focus on or give much weight or seriousness to this proposition. Or they don't focus on the relevant fact that diplomacy has been tried and the mullahs don't consider it in their interest not to acquire 'the bomb'. Their mental focus shifts instead to other topics which are tangential or not central to an issue of *clear and present danger*.

Quite often they want to focus instead on:

1. whether or not the U.S. comes to the issue with "clean hands" (e.g, if we committed an injustice a generation or two ago with regard to replacing the predecessor to the shah.

2. guilt or disrepute or tarring or smearing by association (e.g., most people don't like the "neoconservatives", so by attaching a view of alarm over Iran to them, the underlying issue itself doesn't have to be discussed or treated seriously.)

I'm not quite sure what to call this class of error. It's not 'evasion' in the Objectivist sense, because it is often not conscious or deliberate, but subconscious. And it's not being totally 'out of focus', because people who make it can be intensely focused and energetic in developing their thinking on, say, 1 or 2 above.

Perhaps the best word for it is cognitive *shunting aside or deflection*: the error of shifting more attention from discussing a crucial issue to some other issue which is tangential or not directly relevant and which is distracting.

(Sometimes it seems the cause of this error is a Scarlett O'Hara digging in of heels. A deep psychological resistance to dealing with unpleasantness or the anxiety-provoking: "I'll think about it tomorrow.")

Edited February 27, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

I'm currently teaching an adult education thinking and problem solving course. It is clear to anyone who follows current events that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a deadly danger to all of us.

Yet when liberals or advocates of diplomacy talk about this, they refuse to focus on this (or on the fact that diplomacy has been tried and the mullahs don't consider it in their interest not to acquire 'the bomb'.)

Their mental focus shifts to other topics which are tangential or not central to an issue of *clear and present danger*. Quite often they want to focus instead on:

1. whether or not the U.S. comes to the issue with "clean hands" (e.g, if we committed an injustice a generation or two ago with regard to replacing the predecessor to the shah)or on:

2. guilt or disrepute or tarring or smearing by association (most people don't like the "neoconservatives", so by attaching a view of alarm over Iran to them, the view itself doesn't have to be discussed or treated seriously.)

I'm not quite sure what to call this class of error. It's not 'evasion' in the Objectivist sense, because it is often not conscious or deliberate, but subconscious. And it's not being totally 'out of focus', because people who make it can be intensely focused and energetic in developing thier thinking on, say, 1 or 2 above.

Perhaps the best word for it is cognitive *shunting aside or deflection*: the error of shifting more attention from discussing a crucial issue to some other issue which is tangential or not directly relevant and which is distracting.

This seems to me to be the same kind of neocon-justifying thinking that should be shunned by any moral thinker.

The choice is not either ignoring the clear and present danger or war on Iran. The proper alternative is an objective, context-keeping assessment of the whole truth. Within that context it may definitely be rationally argued that we must keep Iran from getting nukes until they satisfy certain conditions (the US probably doesn't meet those conditions either), but that argument itself should not be stripped from the overall context, which should include the kinds of things I already mentioned.

You're an Objectivist Philip, you're supposed to be setting an example of how it should be, not getting into pragmatics and pretending you have more say in policy than you do. Nothing any of us say is of any consequence unless it is to paint a vision of how things ought to be, and even then it may be of no consequence, but at least we aren't compromising our principles.

Shayne

[Selene]

Aimee Allen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the American singer/songwriter. For the jazz singer, see Aimée Allen. Aimee Allen

Aimee Allen performing in January 2010. Background information Birth name Aimee Elizabeth Allen Born Missoula, Montana, U.S. Genres Pop rock Occupations Singer-songwriter Instruments Vocals Years active 2002–present Labels Elektra

Side Tracked Associated acts Scott & Aimee

Unwritten Law Website http://www.aimeeallen.com/ Aimee Allen is an American pop/rock singer/songwriter based in Los Angeles, California.^[1][2] She is best known for her work on the dance song "Cooties" made for the soundtrack of the 2007 version of the movie Hairspray.^[3] She was previously signed to Elektra Records and her album I'd Start a Revolution If I Could Get Up in the Morning, featuring tracks produced by Mark Ronson and Don Gilmore, was never released due to a corporate merger.^[4][5] The label did, however, release her first single "Revolution" which was a featured rock video on MTV, appeared in the soundtrack of the film Storm, and was the theme for the WB Television Network series Birds of Prey (though replaced for DVD release in 2008).^[2][6][7][8] In 2007 her song "Stripper Friends" was re-worked and recorded by Kevin Michael featuring Lupe Fiasco as the hit single "We All Want the Same Thing," released by Downtown Records on the debut album Kevin Michael. That same year the song was also covered by celebrity Tila Tequila for her MTV reality show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila.

Allen contributed to the writing of Unwritten Law's album Here's to the Mourning, released in February 2005. She co-wrote lyrics for the entire album with Unwritten Law singer Scott Russo and also co-wrote the hit single "Save Me (Wake Up Call)" along with Russo and Linda Perry. Allen and Russo began a romantic relationship that resulted in a side project called Scott & Aimee.^[9] Their album Sitting in a Tree was released in 2007 by Side Tracked Records.

Allen was also a judge for the 8th annual Independent Music Awards. Her contributions helped assist the careers of upcoming independent artists.^[10][11]

Allen has had a few acting parts, most notably in season 3 of Undressed and Repli-Kate.

Allen has shown support for the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul, recording a song titled "The Ron Paul Revolution Theme Song."^[12] On September 2, 2008, she performed Universal Soldier (at Rep. Paul's request) before a sold out crowd of over 12,000 at Minneapolis' Target Center for the Campaign for Liberty's "Rally for the Republic", hosted by Paul.^[13] She has also supported Paul's son Rand Paul (a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010), performing at a campaign rally at the Kentucky Exposition Center^[14] Her activism led The American Conservative to label her "the freedom movement’s answer to Avril Levigne, with more talent and less tolerance for the Bilderberg Group."^[15]

Allen released a new album called A Little Happiness on July 21, 2009, published by Side Tracked Records with ADA/Warner.^[16] She recently contributed to the soundtrack for the film, Sorority Row, and released a single called "I'm Here".

Wikipedia with footnotes

[sjw]

Selene,

Further biographical information: Several months before her "Universal Soldier" performance she had been brutally beaten with a crowbar, breaking her jaw. I think there was a distinct change in her style before and after, her angry edge seems to have been taken off. Here's a song from before:

Shayne

[Selene]

Selene,

Further biographical information: Several months before her "Universal Soldier" performance she had been brutally beaten with a crowbar, breaking her jaw. I think there was a distinct change in her style before and after, her angry edge seems to have been taken off. Here's a song from before:

Shayne

Shayne:

Was it a random mugging? Or, was it targeted based on her positions? Or, do you know the "reason" for the assault?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne:

Was it a random mugging? Or, was it targeted based on her positions? Or, do you know the "reason" for the assault?

Adam

Previous to the beating she had alleged that her songs about "revolution" had been in some manner censored at the prompting of the CIA, and she had been putting in significant energy into the Ron Paul movement up until that time. I cannot rule out that this was not a random beating, that she was in fact targeted, but there is no specific evidence. There is just the fact that she has become somewhat apolitical and distinctly less of a "rabble-rouser" since the beating.

Shayne

Edited February 27, 2011 by sjw

[Selene]

Shayne:

Was it a random mugging? Or, was it targeted based on her positions? Or, do you know the "reason" for the assault?

Adam

Previous to the beating she had alleged that her songs about "revolution" had been in some manner censored at the prompting of the CIA, and she had been putting in significant energy into the Ron Paul movement up until that time. I cannot rule out that this was not a random beating, that she was in fact targeted, but there is no specific evidence. There is just the fact that she has become somewhat apolitical and distinctly less of a "rabble-rouser" since the beating.

Shayne

That's a shame, I like her voice and she has a pounding style that is powerful.

[sjw]

That's a shame, I like her voice and she has a pounding style that is powerful.

I agree. I have all her albums, one of them signed by her. I don't normally go for the style she often sings in (can be somewhat like rap at times), but with her I make an exception. There is virtue in her later stuff but I miss her angry edge.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

The reason why the movie didn't go into the Shah being installed over Mossadegh was that the event obviously had/have no relevance.

The U.S. took up the task of staging the coup as the result of a request by the British for the U.S. to do so. Obviously there was a fear or some sort of intel that the Soviets were assisting Mossadegh. The U.S. had a right to kick out Mossadegh and put in the Shah because the end result would have been a communist state for the Iranians also friendly to the Shi'ite Islamists who also hated the Shah.

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R. Therefore it was legitimate for the U.S. to install the Shah.

Dictatorships (especially communist ones) are outlaws and have no rights. When Mossadegh was in power and made the moves that he did to enact communist economic policies (like nationalizing the Iranian oil fields) which would have confiscated the British company who was refining and extracting the oil at the time, all bets were off and it was legit for the C.I.A.to kick him and the communists out via the coup.

It does not identify all of the factors creating this intent. Importantly, it does not even mention how the US helped to overthrow a democratically-elected leader of Iran to install and support a dictator. Now, if Iran had done that to the US, do you think we might have some kind of lasting hatred toward Iran

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

My Objectivist club showed this film on Thursday. As it turns out you can watch "Iranium" for free on Hulu. See this movie, friends. After doing so you will better understand why we have to go to war with Iran.

http://www.hulu.com/...nium#s-p1-so-i0

What kind of war? A war to change regimes? A war of conquest and occupation? A war of extermination?

Forget conquest and occupation. We have not got the resources for occupying and ruling Iran. A war to change regimes. To what regime? A war of extermination (my choice) but we don't have the balls for it. As a nation we are far to soft to do that.

Do you seriously believe we can beat sense into the heads of 50 million Shi'ite Muslems? Dream on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[mfgreaves]

Well, if we are looking for the "full context", please remember what triggered the 1953 coup:

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, after a period of great difficulty and fruitless exploration

(they nearly gave up on ever finding oil in Iran and had burned through their cash),

finally struck oil in 1908, and single-handedly turned Iran into a major producer.

Mossadegh thanked them by attempting forced nationalization of their company,

with broad public support. It is probably the case that AIOC (formerly APOC,

now BP) should have offered Iran a better deal by 1951.

In any case, anti-western feeling led to the 1953 coup, not the other way round.

Mike

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Shayne

[sjw]

The reason why the movie didn't go into the Shah being installed over Mossadegh was that the event obviously had/have no relevance.

It's obvious why it's not relevant that the US overthrew a democratically chosen ruler? I.e., the ruler that the majority of Iranians wanted? You don't think that's going to piss a lot of people off?

I don't know that I'm interested in untangling that spaghetti logic you call an "argument", the main thing of relevance here is that your coup strategy pissed a lot of Iranians off, and that your rationalizing about why it's OK to do that is beside the point of whether this fact is relevant or not. So I'm going to have to say that you are totally evading the point at issue here: The US does something that pisses off over half a nation, the nation gets angry and holds a grudge. You don't think that's "relevant"? Then you're 100% pure insane.

Shayne