CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief: "Washington, Tel Aviv, and London are already goading Iran to react with v - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34061501]Of course. Honestly, corporatism is when your main industries basically control your governments decisions. You can't deny the massive car industry has influence over the German government.[/QUOTE] Plus the huge banks.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061464]Aside from Membership in the WTO,EU And OECD, it is the home to a large amount huge multinational companies. Also for lobbying: [url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/germ-f01.shtml[/url]. The OECD especially.[/QUOTE] Right, for one, membership in the EU and OECD doesn't mean you're corporatist. The WTO is debatable, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As for the article, I'll ignore the fact you used a source self-identified as the 'World Socialist Website', because at least it sounds plausible. Now, on to the larger question: Is your criteria for whether or not a country is corporatist just 'does lobbying exist within the country' or 'do corporations have [I]any[/I] influence, no matter how small'?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34061510]Right, for one, membership in the EU and OECD doesn't mean you're corporatist. The WTO is debatable, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As for the article, I'll ignore the fact you used a source self-identified as the 'World Socialist Website', because at least it sounds plausible. Now, on to the larger question: Is your criteria for whether or not a country is corporatist just 'does lobbying exist within the country' or 'do corporations have [I]any[/I] influence, no matter how small'?[/QUOTE] Influence from minor to large scale control of a legislative assembly and/or policy.

Regardless whether Germany has some corporatist elements, NATO is not remotely Facist.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34061501]Of course. Honestly, corporatism is when your main industries basically control your governments decisions. You can't deny the massive car industry has influence over the German government.[/QUOTE] Right, and corporate influence is certainly corrupting. However, I would not base the statement of 'a country is corporatist' on the idea that some industry has influence in the government. Fascism is the merger of corporation and state, but this is not that. Corporatism, at least according to Wikipedia, is this: Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root "corp" meaning "body". [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ale994145;34061531]Influence from minor to large scale control of a legislative assembly and/or policy.[/QUOTE] Where did you get that definition?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;34061533]Regardless whether Germany has some corporatist elements, NATO is not remotely Facist.[/QUOTE] Although not completely fascist, it is very militarist and imperialistic.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061464]Aside from Membership in the WTO,EU And OECD, it is the home to a large amount huge multinational companies. Also for lobbying: [url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/germ-f01.shtml[/url]. The OECD especially.[/QUOTE] The WTO, yeah, that's bull, but the EU is not a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34061540]Right, and corporate influence is certainly corrupting. However, I would not base the statement of 'a country is corporatist' on the idea that some industry has influence in the government. Fascism is the merger of corporation and state, but this is not that. Corporatism, at least according to Wikipedia, is this: Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root "corp" meaning "body". [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] Where did you get that definition?[/QUOTE] I have been using corporatism as a substitution for plutocracy, and you did ask my certiera. [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34061554]The WTO, yeah, that's bull, but the EU is not a bad thing.[/QUOTE] What about the OECD, that is like a huge stamp that means your corporatist controlled.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34061554]The WTO, yeah, that's bull, but the EU is not a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Right, that was my point.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34061564]Right, that was my point.[/QUOTE] The EU's premise is not bad but really its just a huge economic block.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061556]I have been using corporatism as a substitution for plutocracy, and you did ask my certiera.[/quote] Then say plutocracy, not a word that isn't accurate to what you're saying. [QUOTE=Ale994145;34061556]What about the OECD, that is like a huge stamp that means your corporatist controlled.[/QUOTE] Again, not true. In the OECD is Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, among others. Would you say that they are corporatist or plutocratic? [editline]5th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ale994145;34061568]The EU's premise is not bad but really its just a huge economic block.[/QUOTE] Well as I'm sure you're aware, it has developed into a more political union over time. There was a time when it was just the European Economic Community, without a European Parliament.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34061580]Then say plutocracy, not a word that isn't accurate to what you're saying. Again, not true. In the OECD is Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, among others. Would you say that they are corporatist or plutocratic?[/QUOTE] They are all exceptions, although they do have some plutocracy present.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061584]They are all exceptions, although they do have some plutocracy present.[/QUOTE] You can't flip flop between exceptions and corporatist states.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061584]They are all exceptions, although they do have some plutocracy present.[/QUOTE] "What about the OECD, that is like a huge stamp that means your corporatist controlled." Doesn't sound like something that would have exceptions, does it?

if only churchill hadnt started ww2

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34061601]You can't flip flop between exceptions and corporatist states.[/QUOTE] I stated on the first page that they were exceptions. I'm not going to include them for the sake of including them, that is false.

We're never gonna get out of the Middle East, are we? It'll be 2050, first man on Mars, and we'll STILL be stuck in that blasted desert. All this war's gonna be hell for America; all that wasted money going down the drain to fund more tanks and marines and flying drones to fight a war we probably don't need to fight. Thing is, we probably don't even need to fire a single missile; we could just threaten to drop it on Iran if they threaten to nuke Israel, but instead make the threat hollow and don't fire ze missiles. MAD's a strong deterrent for those in the know, and even if they fire a bomb at us for merely threatening them we could easily shoot it down with our defense network...

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34061609]"What about the OECD, that is like a huge stamp that means your corporatist controlled." Doesn't sound like something that would have exceptions, does it?[/QUOTE] Alright, I contradicted myself, sorry? This is not even relevant now, your just calling me out.

The coming year will be fun, having to act smuggler and see if I can save my relatives in Iran from impending doom.

[QUOTE=mac338;34059153]Iran is old beans now, Americans are tired of it. Let's bomb Pakistan now.[/QUOTE] Nah, Norway seems like a better target.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;34061708]Nah, Norway seems like a better target.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I heard Thailand said you guys were losers and that you smell. Just saying bro I wouldn't take that.

[QUOTE=Spooter;34059094]While this certainly seems probable, I'm still skeptical on the credibility of the source here. He's the [U]former[/U] head of the CIA's [U]Bin Laden[/U] unit, and while I'd certainly say he has good inside info on a variety of topics this seems a bit out of his realm. As well, he's not releasing this statement out of the good of his heart, he has an agenda. He's already on a soap box for the first half of the article, then he comes out and says the quote of the title. He could be pulling this out of his ass for all we know. I think that yeah, he might very well be right, it's not implausible, but to me the whole claim seems dubious.[/QUOTE] Really? Have you kept up with the news at all? I don't even like Iran or support it in the slightest, but it is common knowledge that Western intelligence agencies and/or Mossad are conducting wet work within Iran as we speak.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061545]Although not completely fascist, it is very militarist and imperialistic.[/QUOTE] A military alliance is militarist? Sacre bleu!

The Source of the OP is not the most credible one, isn't it? And if the CIA is really provocing attacks from Iran, why isn't Iran/Syria showing any evidence of that?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised. The US goaded Mexico into attacking so that they could say that the Mexicans started the Mexican-American War.

[QUOTE=Spooter;34059094]While this certainly seems probable, I'm still skeptical on the credibility of the source here. He's the [U]former[/U] head of the CIA's [U]Bin Laden[/U] unit, and while I'd certainly say he has good inside info on a variety of topics this seems a bit out of his realm. As well, he's not releasing this statement out of the good of his heart, he has an agenda. He's already on a soap box for the first half of the article, then he comes out and says the quote of the title. He could be pulling this out of his ass for all we know. I think that yeah, he might very well be right, it's not implausible, but to me the whole claim seems dubious.[/QUOTE] ^I agree. It's not like it'd be totally surprising but it seems a little more like a suspicion rather than a factual claim. And wouldn't it just be convenient for Iran?

Generally any conflict that happens between countries is a personal fued for totally different reasons that only upper administration knows about if you know what I mean. So they come up with a reason and basically use their country as complete puppets to put another in its place and explain it to the public by commiting acts in a way that doesn't seem suspicious, like the twin towers conspiracy. Basically rich politicians that have the smarts and money to fuck with the world and get away with it.

[QUOTE=Gentlemanne;34062455]Really? Have you kept up with the news at all? I don't even like Iran or support it in the slightest, but it is common knowledge that Western intelligence agencies and/or Mossad are conducting wet work within Iran as we speak.[/QUOTE] I'm not denying that they conducted wet work, I know very well that they have. I'm trying to say that I doubt the source has direct access to knowledge pertaining as to why those operations were conducted, and is likely making inferences to reinforce his message.

[QUOTE=Ale994145;34061545]Although not completely fascist, it is very militarist and imperialistic.[/QUOTE] oh so you just used the term "Fascist" like a fucking hippie so that you could deliver a dramatic message? Pathetic. While I do recognise that NATO is just another word for the "American military sphere". NATO is NOT Fascist because NATO doesn't have a mind of its own. It's a collection of states band together militarily. As for the US, that's a different story. For someone who is interested in this weird ideology, I could say the US is "slightly Fascist" at best.

[QUOTE=Killuah;34063035]The Source of the OP is not the most credible one, isn't it? And if the CIA is really provocing attacks from Iran, why isn't Iran/Syria showing any evidence of that?[/QUOTE] I find it funny that if the source is well known it'd be more credible even though they have the same aptitude for bullshit