BarneyFife
Diamond Member
Typical of a coward right wing keyboard commando.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
15 British Sailors Seized By Iran
Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Typical of a coward right wing keyboard commando.
tomywishbone
Golden Member
Googer
Lifer
Why would a couple of nukes guarantee them safety? That's a horrible use of logic. The US could easily neutralize a couple of nukes and/or provide an effect much greater than they could. It would not provide them a bit of safety. Especially if they tick off Israel or another Nuclear country.
Nukes provided Pakistan safety in the case of India/Pakistan, but that's because both of them have relatively small arsenals. This is like arguing that we should let the Sunnis get nuked in Iraq to be "safe" from the Shia majority.
Then you don't understand the concept of MAD. MUTALLY assured destruction. Not inflicting some damage while the other side reduces you to a hole in the ground.
I fail to see deterrence as a valid argument for Iran getting Nukes. Seems the rest of the world (including the UN) doesn't buy it either.
Well, if they have it, we'd sure as hell wouldn't even mess with them, simple as that. No threats, no sabre-rattling, no invasion. Why? because they know they would lose a confrontation with us and we know that as well. Seeing that these people see honor in death, I'd doubt that they'd think twice about spiriting a nuclear bomb into America or Israel, just so that they can inflict maximum damage. We (now) know that and that is why the US and her allies want to stop Iran from getting such a powerful (in more ways than one) weapon.
Any credible PROOF showing Iran has nuclear weapons, or has produced nuclear-weapons SPECIFIC components?
Sorry, we already went to war once for a false "WMD" threat. Amazing you lap dogs are ready to jump twice on Heir Bush's command.
The NPT allows for Iran to legally enrich uranium to produce nuclear energy.
Just as was the case in Iraq, the US is asking Iran to prove a "negative fact", that it is not producing nuclear weapons. Of course, the US knows proving this is near impossible (as was the case in Iraq), and thus conflict is the only outcome.
Iran, just like EVERY other signatory of the NPT, has the right to produce nuclear energy LEGALLY under international law, from start to finish.
Sorry, we already went to war once for a false "WMD" threat. Amazing you lap dogs are ready to jump twice on Heir Bush's command.
The NPT allows for Iran to legally enrich uranium to produce nuclear energy.
Just as was the case in Iraq, the US is asking Iran to prove a "negative fact", that it is not producing nuclear weapons. Of course, the US knows proving this is near impossible (as was the case in Iraq), and thus conflict is the only outcome.
Iran, just like EVERY other signatory of the NPT, has the right to produce nuclear energy LEGALLY under international law, from start to finish.
While British language has reached the "we require the immediate release" stage, the Iranian language has started to include patronizing phrases like "incorrect attitude".
A senior official said this:
"We even said that the grounds were ready for the release of a woman among the British sailors but if we are faced with fuss and wrong behavior then this would be suspended and it would not take place."
...
Wrong behavior? Fuss? Yea ok I think I just became a hawk.
I wouldn't want to see all out war, but let's go get the sailors eh? Sure they might launch aircraft at our ships in the gulf, I think we still have the carrier HMS Ark Royal there along with various attached ships, but don't we have much better missile systems than them? Couldn't they deal with any immediate reaction? After that we could leave them to stew - it's not like they're going to try and invade Britain. Even without America lifting a finger that would be a suicide mission for them.
A senior official said this:
"We even said that the grounds were ready for the release of a woman among the British sailors but if we are faced with fuss and wrong behavior then this would be suspended and it would not take place."
...
Wrong behavior? Fuss? Yea ok I think I just became a hawk.
I wouldn't want to see all out war, but let's go get the sailors eh? Sure they might launch aircraft at our ships in the gulf, I think we still have the carrier HMS Ark Royal there along with various attached ships, but don't we have much better missile systems than them? Couldn't they deal with any immediate reaction? After that we could leave them to stew - it's not like they're going to try and invade Britain. Even without America lifting a finger that would be a suicide mission for them.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
So now Iran is having their British Bitch write letters home, asking for British pullout of Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
Pretty obious that Iran is waiting in the wings to take over Iraq as soon as we all tuck tail and run just like the cowardly liberals want us to.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
Pretty obious that Iran is waiting in the wings to take over Iraq as soon as we all tuck tail and run just like the cowardly liberals want us to.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
To think Iran has the balls to claim GPS coordinates false when they are using what to justify their argument? Yard sticks and binoculars?
Let me correct your statement. Halliburton will NOT be exempt from US taxes. They are moving their headquarters to Dubai which has a much more favorable tax system than our current system. This is a business decision to save them some money. This will not affect any of the taxes that Halliburton pays for work they do in the US or for work they do overseas that they have been contracted to do for the US government. Halliburton, however, will not have to pay US taxes on services they provide in other countries. They do a lot of work in Russia, Pakistan, etc. that is currently subject to US tax. Moving their headquarters to a 'tax friendly' nation will allow them to save on taxes paid for services provided outside of the United States. This makes perfect sense from a business standpoint and I do not blame their board of directors for doing this. This is the same reason that Daimler-Chrysler moved their HQ to Germany from Detroit. This is purely a business decision.
This is not the best decision for the US government as they will lose some tax revenue, but until they change the current tax code you will see more business follow suit. Halliburton (and all other businesses) is in business to make money. They do have to answer to their board of directors and ultimately the stock holders and this makes perfect sense from a business point of view. Like it or not this is not illegal and will likely continue for those businesses that do much business overseas.
Are you blind? Iran has already taken over Iraq by proxy. What do you think happens when we remove Iran's biggest enemy (Saddam) and replace him with a Shiite majority? Pro-Iranian Shiite clerics that were once under Saddam's thumb are now in favor.
Doesn't matter if we leave now or 5 years from now; they pieces are in place.
Fern
Elite Member
As has been pointed out numerous by myself and other tax CPA's, the above bolded portion of your remarks is incorrect. (and of course babylon5 is 100% incorrect)
US corporations, just like US citizens, are taxed on their world-wide income. I.e., irregardless the source of income, the US gov claims the right to tax it.
If the income is from a foreign source, and it is taxed by a foreign gov, a credit for those taxes will be given by the US gov so that the US compnay does not suffer double taxation.
Fern
Fern
Elite Member
OK
AS long as well all agree that US citizens & co.s pay tax to the US gov. HQ location doesn't matter, source of income doesn't matter, etc. SCOTUS ruled back in 1913 (IIRC) that Uncle Sam can charge tax on world-wide income.
But I am posting to point out something (else) that most people don't realize - If Haliburton did cease to be a US cor. , and (re)incorporated in a foreign country, they would pay a but-load of income tax.
When a US company takes assets abroad (like reincorporating elsewhere to escape US taxation on future earnings) they mustr pay a "toll charge" under section 367 (or another related provision of tax law).
To put it simply, the toll charge would be as if the entire company was sold, and they would pay US income tax on that gain.
Look, there aren't 50,000 pages of tax law for nothing. There's so much hidden tricky complicated sh!t in there your head would explode. Congress, who writes & passes tax law, really doesn't wanna lose any revenue.
Fern
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
