Ali Mostofi - Iranian Astrologer and Current Affairs Commentator.

Consipracy theories

F: I suppose then you would not subscribe to the all familiar one about Nixon and his visit to the Shah which resulted in a massive arms deal.

Or perhaps the one about how the US wanted HIM to wage war on Saddam and he refused, so they got Khomeini to cause havoc.

Khomeini said that the Shah spent a lot on weapons. But just look at the IRGC, they have done a wonderful job in buying weapons.

I am personally a great believer that the HIM told the US that now that Iran is well equipped they can leave the area. Guess what happened? They brought the IRGC around and starting selling even more.

All this is really a waste of time. The solution is for Iranians to be represented properly abroad.

Thanks for your contribution.

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Of course military industries profit from war

President Eisenhower, former Allied commander in Europe, during World War II, warned of the military-industrial complex and rightly so.  You, I and Ike would agree that far.  It is your next step in thinking whicih is highly disputable.  You jump to a nutty conspiracy theory--that the military-industial complex secretly plots most wars or successfully encourages even one is a huge jump.

Consider how your basic premise doesn't lead automatically to the conclusion you arrive at.

Premise: Manufacturers of military goods do well in wartime.

Premise: Therefore the encouage wars.

Conclusion: Therefore they succeed.

First problem: Even if both premises were true, the conclusion you offer would not automatically follow from those premises.

Second problem: Any false or unproven premise can lead to any desired conclusion--a technique known as "begging the question."

One must therefore question the premise and see how it holds up. In this case, few would quarrel with the first premise.   The second is highly questionable and relies on conspiracy theories, akin to other conspiracy theories about the causes of "everything."  See: "The Masons are behind it," "The Jews are behind everything," (popular in Muslim countries), "the West is behind everything (popular with every fallen Areab Spring dictator, IRI leaders and folks like AmirforSecularMonarchy, who deplored the ouster of Samoza, Mubarek, Saddam Hussein, Khadaffi and the similar threat to Assad.   I guess Amir thinks all Iranians want is secularism and have no interest in western-style social and political freedoms and especially democracy, which he deplores.

WEAK PREMISE EXAMINED

"The Military Industrial Complex is behind all  America's wars (or something similar is behind everyone's wars)"

The military-industrial complex exists but I highly doubt its successfully encouraged a single war.   When it comes to conspiracy theories, the burden of proof is always on the person proposing such theories and rightly so.It is impossible to prove the negative, which is exactly what conspiracy theorists rely on.  They are a especially abundant in the Middle East and encouaged by every tinpot dictator as you may have noticed.

If Ahmad says "Sayyed Is a Homosexual" the latter doesn't become fact merely because Sayyed (Khamenei?) cannot prove otherwise.  Of course he can't.

Nobody ever goes to war by saying, "Let's make the military industries rich"--not in the USA, France, Germany, or anywhere else.

The USA didn't fight World War I or II to aid weapons manufacturers.   Nor was that the main motives for fighting the Korean War, the Vietnam War (product of false strategic assumptions) or the Afghan War (Tabliban sheltered Al Queda who plannned more 9/11), or the Iraq War.  As for Assad and Iran, should the USA or the West go to war against them, their will be plenty of good reasons to do other than the conspiracy theory you offer.  

The usual favorite among conspiracy theoriests involves oil and was even applied ANYWAY to wars in which the countries involved had none (Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Mogadishu).    Iraq did have oil but the charge made no sense since we always paid FULL MARKET PRICE for oil and continue to do so. Meanwhile we spend three trillion dollars on Afghanistan and Iraq, including hundreds of billions in aid (often stolen by locals).

You also fail to note another thing that promotes constant military expenditures, at least where a nation can keep up--the pace of technological change.   Failure to keep up here can make a nation military uncompetitive (a la the Soviet Star Wars problem).    This is exactly why the USA--not France, England or anyone else--is the party people like the Syrians--really hope for to bail them out of oppression.   No one else has the capacities.  

Thus, the IRI wouldn't have a prayer against American technology unless we failed to adapt from past lessons and followed a strategy that made it easy for them (IEDs are all ready should USA undertake ground action).  Nor will we play into their hands in Hormuz by doing what they count on.  

Modern warfare requires quick adaptation and that includes evolving weaponry.  Thus, I would say to spend money on the next generation of fighters is like dumping money into battleships after WWI and the coming of airpower.  We get pressure to do this but so far haven't approved such expenditures, nor should we.

Profiting from war

An interesting read here

www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/milita...

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

$100 billion and a lot of jobs.

Basics on US military business

www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Indu...

Read the last sentence. That's literally is the "bottom line".

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Cut-backs precede a new war.

Panetta worries about cut-backs.

www.businesslive.co.za/world/2012/07/09/us-arms-ma...

That's why he loves Ayatollahs. They will give him a reason not to have cut-backs. A new war means more money for arms industry. In turn that means more money for right wing.

Of course that increases the price if oil which is good for oil companies. So arms and oil always go hand in hand all over the world. The Ayatollah traders and US traders all benefit from war.

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Money for GOP candidates. Billions!!

F: there are two camps. The military and non military. What I have shown there are the non military and it is clear they supported Obama. Please read this for GOP donation from military companies:

www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/07/13/defens...

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Neither link supports your case

You said 60 % of US GNP goes to the military which would which would leave the economy with little else.   I showed that's impossible.   Then you provide two odd links as evidence but neither functions as such. 

One link you offer takes us to a list of contributors who in most cases are NOT even military industries and or employed by such while the exceptions in most cases do a limited fraction of business with the military.

The other link says members of the military (not the same thing as militry industries who favor the GOP,  have shifted some contributions to Obama instead of Ron Paul.  An above average portion of soldiers are minority members, black or hispanic.   Younger whites also are more likely to support Obama than older whiches.

In any case, why would any lobby, military OR OTHERWISE, want to give campaign money to Ron Paul now, as if he were going anywhere?  Are you perhaps a Paul supporter?   You may as well walk up to the nearest manhole, pulll off the cover and dump your campaign contributions in there for all the good a contribuiton to Ron Paul would do in the real world.

So how does this link support your case?  

Donations to Obama are not

Donations to Obama are not military.

//www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=...

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

US military buying votes

Came across this article on campaign contributions.

//thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/25/47085...

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

F: Size vs Spending

Below is a good article that focuses on spending and mentions Iran's nuclear policy as a good excuse for more spending. I will find one on size soon.

//www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-us-def...

I will dig up some more reading material for you if you wish. But please observe Forum decorum if you want to have a good dialogue with me.

No one is right but we can get some more truths if we carry out a well mannered conversation. I look forward to your comment.

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

To alimostofi

Re: the right wing in the US are funded by the military procurement companies.

Simplistic Half-Truth.  You forgot the oil and coal industry, the credit card industry, the banking industry, religious fundamentalists,  etc--all big contributors to the GOP which hardly relies on one source for income as you suggest.  How about Stainmaster, owned by the notorious Koch Brothers?   Rural interests are also big contributors.  So are drug companies and the AMA which oppose the Affordable Care Act and any attempt to provide right to die legislation.  

re: 60% of US GDP is from military.

Total fiction.  Also impossible.  I doubt even the Nazi Regime in twowartime reached such a spending mix.  You can hardly be familar with economics to INVENT such a figure.  Where else did you come up with it?  Source, please?

Also I suppose the US doesn't-front produce cars, agricultural products, houses, restaurants, higher ed and other services, etc., or if they do I gather it's not counted as part of GNP.  In fact,the US is predominantly a service economy.

Re: They need to have a threat to substantiate their business.

Defense industries?  Only partly.   They often make other products, like airliners.  Chrysler doesn't merely produce Hummers.   Defense industries also have a substantial foreign market.

You can use the same argument to suggest we "need" Al Queda.   Also, of what defense spending does exist, do you seriously believe most of it is directed at the IRI with its itsy bitsy military, or do we perhaps have other places to worry about.  

Some folks have a penchant for silly conspiracy theories which exist, like belief in the Great Bearded One in the Sky, because you WANT to believe it in. Therefore it's true.

F: I repeat, the right wing

F: I repeat, the right wing in the US are funded by the military procurement companies. 60% of US GDP is from military. They need to have a threat to substantiate their business. That is why they need Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs are doing a better job than USSR ever did.

The flip side are those who prefer butter and medicare more than guns. They follow Chomsky et al.

What Obama did was to mix the two types. He kept the US forces intact and put legislation in for medicare. He also accepted the Ayatollahs as Iranians and opened channels like Chomsky wanted him to. He got the votes. Now he knows better.

@alimostofi
FB: astrologer.alimostofi

Silly and misleading heading

According to the author, IF Chomsky respects the Ayatollahs, it follows that "America respects the Ayatollahs.   This is the argument of an ideologue and not rationale in the way it draws conclusions. 

The only Americans who "respect" the Ayatollahs are far left-extremists like Chomsky who represent a miniscule percentage of tge the American people. Yet his views are somehow converted into the majority's views.

As for the right-wing, you really have to twist logic to argue that "they trust the Ayatollahs."   C'mon Fox News, Dick Cheyney, etc. feel that way!  They'd  go to war to oust the Ayatollahs in a second if they were in a position to do so.

As for centrists and much of the left (excluding Chomsky types) they despise the Ayatollahs.    

That brings us to the great majority--the apolitical types they rarely follow international affairs and concentrate on their own lives.  In that sense they are like MOST people.   To the extent they think of Iran occasionally, they think of the American embassy siege, the marine barracks in Lebanon (to a much lesser extent) and the grotesque crimes committed after the 2009 election.  

Remember that for the average person like this, their only source of news is television so they could hardly have missed the atter.  This type reads newspapers only for the sports, crime news, celebrity nonsense etc. and never reads in-depth books or Foreign Affairs Quarterly on international problems.

You can't expect everyone to be interested in political issues,  alimostofi, as you, I and readers here are.

Also people who are concerned with the hardships of people other than the group to which they belong--the Brad Pitts, Sean Penns, George Clooneys and non-celebrity equivalents like myself (I'm not Iranian or Syrian yet sympathize with both peoples enough to spend a great deal of my time supporting both) are not typical of the majority ANYWHERE.   Why should people expect Amerticans to be any different in this respect?  It's unrealistic and unfair.

There's no point crying over the fact that most people are non-political EXCEPT when a crisis affects them personally.   That's just the way it is and the way it will remain (How many Iranians worry over the plight of North Koreans or Sudanese?  Iranians have their own problem and are more politically interested than they'd be under normal conditions but mainly in Iran's problems.)

Why twist logic to arrive at the conclusion in your header, which hardly follows from the subsequent content?  To put it in logical perspective, your premises don't in any way support the conclusion found in your header (the conclusion drawn from the former).