Umair Haque / Bubblegeneration
umair haque  

 
 


Design principles for 21st century companies, markets, and economies. Foreword by Gary Hamel. Coming January 4th. Pre-order at Amazon.


 
Monday, April 10, 2006


Politics of the Day - Iranageddon

Let me just take a minute to point out that when Bush nukes Iran, the world as you know it will probably end for the next five years or so.

The price of oil will skyrocket; stock markets will crash; interest rates will spike; a credit crunch and liquidity crisis will ensue; creditors will pile out of the dollar with a vengeance, and the dollar will plummet to levels not seen in recorded history as value shifts decisively to Asia and maybe Europe; and the average joe (=you) will lose his house, car, savings, and maybe even a kid or two.

So, this is very, very bad news. And I haven't even talked about the kind of madness that will ensue in the Muslim world.

The worst part is that I've been hearing rumours of this for the last year or so - just like I heard rumours of Abu Ghraib, etc. So I'm pretty sure it's on the level.

And I've gotta say, I am bloody frightened. Of the god-lovin' maniac who runs the USA the god-lovin' (30%ish of) people that continue to support him.

*buys oil, Halliburton, and euros*

-- umair // 7:16 PM // 31 comments


Comments:

*buys oil, Halliburton, and euros*

Please don't forget Gold.

This gives me a chance to link to, if not your equivalent in the global security arena, at least a potential source:

Global Guerillas
// Anonymous Anonymous // 1:14 AM
 

Yeah. Bush is going to nuke Iran and the global market will fold; these are smart and amazing predictions. Ass. Not even humrous in a 2.0 context.

The president is really just a puppet for God right? Unlike everyone else who manages to escape God's control-people like you who are uncertain of the future and are just looking for the next piece (of the market) to get their hands. C'mon greed baby, marginalize and ridicule those who acknowledge God. You never know when you might wake up with a set of dysfunctional lungs. Better get some while the gettings good. Coward. -patrick@playingwithplato.com
// Anonymous Anonymous // 10:18 PM
 

Yeah. Bush is going to nuke Iran and the global market will fold; these are smart and amazing predictions. Ass. Not even humrous in a 2.0 context.

The president is really just a puppet for God right? Unlike everyone else who manages to escape God's control-people like you who are uncertain of the future and are just looking for the next piece (of the market) to get their hands. C'mon greed baby, marginalize and ridicule those who acknowledge God. You never know when you might wake up with a set of dysfunctional lungs. Better get some while the gettings good. Coward. -patrick@playingwithplato.com
// Anonymous Anonymous // 10:19 PM
 

Defense Tech
http://www.defensetech.org/
// Blogger Dimitar Vesselinov // 12:50 AM
 



That's pretty rash thinking. I mean it's probably on the table of options, but they can pick an approach sort of from 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst case.

I don't think they'll pick 10, the likelyhood being rather low. So why do you consider 10 so dramatically? Hmmm...

Cheers, Chris D.
// Anonymous Chris D. // 5:13 AM
 

Oh, thank God there's a plan! For a moment there, I thought we were just going to let Iran have nuclear weapons.

Sorry, could you try to make it sound a little worse? Because your scenario's just not working for me, compared to the prospect of an American city reduced to cinders and rubble.

On second thought, save your breath. I think this is a prime opportunity for you to discuss the pros and cons of a nuclear Iran.

Then maybe later, once we have a better perspective, we come back to the subject of what the worst case scenario really is.
// Anonymous johngaltline // 12:36 PM
 

Frankly, it would be stupid of the Iranians NOT to pursue nuclear weapons. In light of what was done to the neighboring country in the name of "bringing them democracy*" it would be treasonous mismanagement not to pursue the one thing that would prevent a similar occurrence in their own country.

(*) We seem to have gone from Kipling's White Man's Burden to Bush's White Trash Burden: bring ye Pamela Anderson and Jerry Springer to the dark peoples of the world.
// Anonymous Anonymous // 3:38 PM
 

"Because your scenario's just not working for me, compared to the prospect of an American city reduced to cinders and rubble."

I find this comment interesting because it makes absolutely no sense. What would a nuclear attack on the United States result in for a sovereign country? Well, I think a reasonable man would argue obliteration. So why would you do it?

You find the same typical American attitude towards the Iraqis before the start of this ridiculous war (good job on that one by the way, I'm sure God was helping with the planning). Oh they had hospitals? In Iraq? No, I thought they all lived in teepees and grew opium. Universities? Never.

It's the ignorance in believing that Iran would actually nuke an American city that's so revealing. Contrary to what your preacher might tell you, the Iranian administration isn't actually crazy. Well, let me rephrase that, they are just as crazy as the American administration. Nuclear weapons are a means to a political end. The only people who actually would use them are 1) the USA as demonstrated in history 2) non-state terrorists as theorized by Fox news.

Below all this is the assumption that Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons. My personal views aside, why would anybody believe the US administration? The Iranian nuclear test facility is probably a daycare centre or something. Oh no, we didn't find the WMDs and mobile chemical weapon producing trucks in Iraq, so let's move over and check Iran.

By the way, I would remind you the only middle eastern country with nuclear weapons (although they do not *officially* claim to have them, the IAEA doesn't seem to care, and UN resolutions go unnoticed) is Israel. Is balance of power a foreign concept, or does racism cloud the real issues here?

War is not a solution.
// Blogger dhd // 5:29 PM
 

"What would a nuclear attack on the United States result in for a sovereign country? Well, I think a reasonable man would argue obliteration. So why would you do it?"

I hear they do it for the virgins.

We are not at odds with an Iranian "administration." We are at odds with an Islamic theocratic state.

They do not have a rational agenda, and it would be irrational for us to wait and see what they do with their bombs.
// Anonymous johngaltline // 5:46 PM
 

John,

You racist f*ck.

I am a Muslim - at least in name.

Which is certainly enough for me to tell you to get the f*ck off my blog and never return.

Also note if you understood the first thing about what Ayn Rand was saying, you would understand that your fear of nuked American cities is totally irrational. You would worry about guns, global warming, healthcare, the dollar.

But you're just another stupid racist. Too stupid to really understand the world around.

Crawl back into your hole, little worm.
// Blogger umair // 5:52 PM
 

"I hear they do it for the virgins."

What a wonderfully simplistic and literally racist statement.

I hear you're a warmonger. Kill for the sake of killing...

Regardless, you seem to miss the point that actually using a nuke would be the end of any aspirations Iran might have. I think in the mind of a child, or your mind, it might make sense that the only real goal the Iranian regime has is self-destruction. But to a sensible person this makes about as much sense as an occupying war to spread democracy.

I don't think the Iranians are at odds with an American "administration", I think they're at odds with a warmongering idiot president and his band of morons going around imposing their political and economic wills on the countries immediately surrounding Iran.

It seems you wouldn't be included in the "reasonable man" category.

How's the war in Iraq going by the way?
// Blogger dhd // 6:04 PM
 

"I hear they do it for the virgins."

What a wonderfully simplistic and literally racist statement.

I hear you're a warmonger. Kill for the sake of killing...

Regardless, you seem to miss the point that actually using a nuke would be the end of any aspirations Iran might have. I think in the mind of a child, or your mind, it might make sense that the only real goal the Iranian regime has is self-destruction. But to a sensible person this makes about as much sense as an occupying war to spread democracy.

I don't think the Iranians are at odds with an American "administration", I think they're at odds with a warmongering idiot president and his band of morons going around imposing their political and economic wills on the countries immediately surrounding Iran.

It seems you wouldn't be included in the "reasonable man" category.

How's the war in Iraq going by the way?
// Blogger dhd // 7:26 PM
 

Here's a scenario (one i have no facts to back up, but one that's worth considering for a few moments).

All that sabre rattling and posturing are just theatre, beause everytime something happens to threaten global oil supply the price jumps.

Of course the cost of production remains the same, so when the price jumps that just pure profit my friends.

So the Bush and Iranian theocracies strike a bargain to talk tough to each other, scare the crap out of everyone, and watch the money flow like, well, like oil.

Think about it... this tactic costs virtually nothing, and spikes the price without touching supply. Diabolically brilliant.
// Anonymous niblettes // 12:17 AM
 

If you really want to understand the oil argument - check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=chaitgear-20%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26creative=165953%26path=http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html%253fASIN=0747570817%2526tag=chaitgear-20%2526lcode=xm2%2526cID=2025%2526ccmID=165953%2526location=/o/ASIN/0747570817%25253FSubscriptionId=09GE3K6JDGSKCKXKEJG2 - it is excellent.

The US position has shifted, from being the swing producer in world oil, to now being a provider of military support to the current swing Producer: Saudi Arabia.

Hitler lost a war because of a desperate lunge at Russian oil.

The Japanese Imperial army lost because their attack on Pearl harbour was unsuccesful. The US were able to sink Japanese oil supply ships, and by the time the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese army was already out of fuel.

Saddam lost his invasion of Kuwait, because Saudi Arabia (which is largely undefended) got nervous and called the Americans.

In recent history an attempt to claim an energy source by military tactics has almost always failed.

Recently we have heard Condi and Jack Straw talking about how things are not progressing fast enough in Iraq, and that this has cost us a lot of money. If this is a precursor to claiming those costs back through oil revenue, then the entire middle east will be up in arms.

The best the US can do is to assist the region into developing into an open and democratic society. When all the price collusion is removed the price of oil would be around a half of what it is now. The Iraqi people need to stand on their own as quick as possible, and have sovereign control of their own energy policy. If they had that, democracy would spread a lot faster than it is now. But of course the US foreign policy would not like another country to have sovereign control of its energy policy - just check out Iran.

It is the old British trick of destablising a country so that when you exit, it cant rally round quickly, and then kick your arse.

I dont think there is any way that the US can militarily secure any OPEC oil - be it in the middle east, or Venezuela. The only way to break OPEC would be to give member states full control. By playing them off against each other with Saudi Arabia, the US is playing a very dangerous, stupid, and near sighted tactic.

The speed and breadth of communication now means that no state can continuosly act unlwafully anywhere. There is no superpower state anymore.
// Anonymous john // 10:11 AM
 

That's funny.

You're calling me "racist" for suggesting that theocracies do not act rationally? Or is racist to suggest that Iran, a state run by ayatollahs and mullahs, is a theocracy?

Rationality exists wherever man acts in his own best interests. When a man is doing "the will of God," as dictated by political leaders, then there is no requirement for a direct relationship between that man's actions and his best interests. Such a man would not always be rationally motivated, would he?

Consider this: Why does Islam hold that rewards, like virgins, await martyrs, if not to get them to make irrational sacrifices?

Ayn Rand would tell you the same thing.

There is nothing in any of my posts that presumes an inherent superiority or inferiority of any race. Absent that, I'm not racist. You'll need to find a better way to discredit me.

But it would probably be less work to simply implement a policy of deleting any posts that strike you as "excessively rational." That way you wouldn't have to resort to name calling.
// Anonymous johngaltline // 12:19 PM
 

dhd, I wouldn't know how Iraq fits into any of this. I do know that the chief executive of a nation, who has previously declared that another sovereign nation should be "wiped off the map," is developing nuclear technologies.

Considering the vast oil wealth of that state, I'm not convinced he's developing those technologies for peaceful purposes.

Are you willing to accept that Iran simply wants nuclear power? If not, then do you not question why they would want -- or should have -- nuclear weapons?
// Anonymous johngaltline // 12:26 PM
 

John (2),

I am calling you a racist because you stereotyped Muslims by letting us know they're only interested in virgins.

It would be the same as you saying Jews only do it for the money, that black people are lazy, that Chinese people work too hard.

"Rationality exists whenever man acts in his own best interest."

Actually (you loathsome idiot), that's called self interest.

The "rational" part is when we can calculate the optimal set of decisions based on the information at hand to lead us to the maximum payoff.

You've just proven why you are what you are: you don't understand what being rational really is.

So how can we expect you to be anything but the scurrying, panicked little worm that you are?

I tell you this because you're dumb. It might help to understand the depth of your own tragic stupidity.

John - you're probably a regular guy. And that's the problem. There are too many stupid regular guys like you.

I hope, now that I've proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are:

1) a racist
2) trivially stupid

You will hit the library, and learn a little bit more about other cultures.

Either way, just get the f*ck off my blog. No racism here - no way.
// Blogger umair // 12:32 PM
 

"I am calling you a racist because you stereotyped Muslims by letting us know they're only interested in virgins."

When did I say anyone's only interested in virgins? My point is that when people do things "for virgins," that's irrational. And Islam -- like it or not -- compels a lot of people do things "for virgins."

"Actually (you loathsome idiot), that's called self interest."

Actually, Rand's point was that, properly weighted (as in the "best" in "best interests"), self-interests are best interests.

Rand would disagree that "maximum payoff" defines rational action when the payoff does not go to the actor. That would be the definition of "sacrifice," which as you obviously know, was not a big priority for her.

Finally, for me to "get the f*ck off your blog," I simply require that you take down all my comments, and then all your posts where you mischaracterize my comments and call me names like "racist," and "loathsome."

Homefield advantage lets you control content, but it's considered bad form to use it for the sole purpose of having "the last word."
// Anonymous Anonymous // 1:37 PM
 

Galt,

Thanks for another stunning dose of racism and idiocy.

1) Racism: Islam doesn't compel anyone to do anything in the name of virgins. It's idiot preachers who do that. Just like in all religions.

Should I judge all Christians by what Tim LaHaye says - convert or go to hell? But you won't acknowledge this; hence, you are a racist.

2) Stupidity: You don't understand a thing about self interest, much less rationality. Your childlike understanding is even less than my (somewhat brilliant) kid sister's.

I suggest you google terms like symbiosis and eusociality (to begin with). You might be surprised what you discover about self-interest and rationality.

I'm gonna leave your comment there for everyone to giggle over.

All future comments by you will be deleted, unless they amuse me - like your demands did ("take my comments down or I'll...cry!!").

And - what a surprise - I really don't give a sh*t about bad form when it comes to (spineless chickenhawk) racists.

Go back to burning crosses, polishing your bust of Cheney, dressing up in duck-hunt fetish gear, practicing long division, or whatever else it is you do for fun with the rest of the drooling racists, racist.

Thanks for the discussion - I am *so* sad it has to end here.
// Blogger umair // 2:14 PM
 

John,

I'm responding to an comment you wrote directed to me...I doubt you will see my response but here it goes anyway.

"Are you willing to accept that Iran simply wants nuclear power? If not, then do you not question why they would want -- or should have -- nuclear weapons?"

In your own words this is irrelevant. But my point was why does anybody believe the American adminstration?

So let's assume the lord GWB and his merry band of disciples is correct and Iran is aiming for nuclear weapons.

So what? I think it still holds that a country with aspirations towards a future would never use a nuclear weapon against the US or, heaven forbid, Israel. This would be suicide. They might as well just aim the missiles right back at themselves. Are you incapable of understanding that 'rational' people with families and desires to live and prosper aren't only located in the westernized countries? Is it not racist to automatically assume that anybody who doesn't believe in the almighty dollar and US style democracy is a theocratic nutball bent on world destruction?

You know I grew up hearing the same bull about the USSR...the American media machine at work. Then Nicaragua, Iran, the Palistinians, North Korea, China, etc. It's all getting kind of old. I understand that for you to fully appreciate the neccesarry illusions your government feeds you, it has to be sugar-coated into a western-movie style good verses evil framework.

I'm getting off topic. So here's the point:

1) You are racist because you seem to think that the reason an Iranian might want to secure their political future through military means, a Palestinian might want his own nation, or an Iraqi might not want his country occupied is because of 'virgins'. I don't think this point needs to be further explained.

2) You're stupid because anybody other than the US with a nuke is a trigger happy, psychomaniac bent on starting WWIII where it's painfully obvious that the epitomy of trigger happy psychomaniacs resides in Washington, DC.
// Blogger dhd // 4:29 PM
 

Hey Guys,

Sorry if this is a harsh thread to read.

But nothing gets to me like racism - I really can't brook racism in any guise.

Hence, my response.
// Blogger umair // 4:39 PM
 

If you thought the content was racist you wouldn't leave it up.
// Anonymous Anonymous // 5:44 PM
 

I think this discussion is a prime example of how divided the country is when it comes to national security. Everyone agrees that security is a major issue, however our paranoia is clouding our judgement. Wars should be fought over clear and present danger, not faulty intelligence and assumed provocation. We can't go and police the whole world, anyone remember the Monroe Doctrine? Personally I'm more afraid of another Timothy McVeigh vs. the probability of Iran nuking Charleston. Regardless of what happens, I'm going long on Halliburton stock, its a clear winner.
// Anonymous mordechai // 6:17 PM
 

I agree-- racist to the core. It's just commonly accepted as such in America today, which is what makes it even more infuriating.

Rather then spending, say a day, reading up on the history of Iran, and, say, a few hours on the history and politics of the Iranian revolution, and, say, 20 minutes reading about the political scene there today, you go for the "irrational muslims" line. Which cntradicts virtually everything you would have found out if you had bothered to actually learn something. Aversion to learning is a symptom of racism.
// Anonymous Ted // 10:07 PM
 

Galt:
When a man is doing "the will of God," as dictated by political leaders, then there is no requirement for a direct relationship between that man's actions and his best interests. Such a man would not always be rationally motivated, would he?

Umair:
Islam doesn't compel anyone to do anything in the name of virgins. It's idiot preachers who do that.

----------------

Ah, but isn't it preachers who control Iran, a theocratic state? Wasn't it preachers who selected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- whose two most public policies include the pursuit of nuclear weapons (that's right, weapons) and the assertion that Israel "should be wiped off the map?"

BTW, have you ever considered applying a racism test to Islam, which holds that non-believers should be subrogated?



Umair:
Should I judge all Christians by what Tim LaHaye says - convert or go to hell? But you won't acknowledge this; hence, you are a racist.

-----------------

In fact I'm happy to acknowledge it. LaHaye is free to believe whatever he wants, unlike the citizens of an Islamic country. But more importantly, the First Amendment renders LaHaye's beliefs irrelevant in the formation of public policy. In contrast, the separation of church and state is against the teachings of Islam.

In a nutshell, I look at Islam differently than Christianity because Islam looks at me differently than Christianity does.



Umair:
You will hit the library, and learn a little bit more about other cultures.

------------------

It's interesting that you apparently use culture and race interchangeably, because I am decidedly not racist. Now, you might take exception to my obvious cultural bias, but cultural biases are at the heart of Islam. It exists "beyond the shadow of a doubt," as you say. Funny, I can't imagine you telling a Muslim to be more tolerant of other cultures.


Umair:
you're probably a regular guy. And that's the problem. There are too many stupid regular guys like you.

------------------

Well, now, that's got to be the most elitist thing I've read on the internet.

Forgive me for recognizing that people are instinctively unlike ants. We all reproduce, and we all have our own bloodlines to worry about. To humans, things are just a little more local. We sacrifice for our own kids.


You should delete this right away, because it's excessively truthful.
// Anonymous johngaltline // 12:20 PM
 

BTW, I meant "subjugate," not subrogate. Should have proofread it better. Mea culpa.
// Anonymous Anonymous // 12:25 PM
 

Well done!
[url=http://nmcpnxso.com/mrqi/srlm.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://cpjcwdxo.com/ucde/pxut.html]Cool site[/url]
// Anonymous Anonymous // 1:23 AM
 

Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
// Anonymous Anonymous // 1:23 AM
 

Thank you!
http://nmcpnxso.com/mrqi/srlm.html | http://ksszbjuh.com/vwvp/moth.html
// Anonymous Anonymous // 1:23 AM
 
 

Recent Tweets







    input
    portfolio
    contact

    mail.
    uhaque (dot) mba2003 (at) london (dot) edu

    skype.
    umair.haque

    atom feed

    technorati profile

    blog archives