Iran faces $2.65bn US bomb award

[Oliver]

A US federal judge has ordered Iran to pay $2.65bn (£1.3bn) to the families of 241 marines killed in a 1983 bombing of their Beirut barracks.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6984365.stm




Awesome stupidity. What's next - Iran sues back for all the
interventions on their soil and people who died because of that?
And why not 265 trillion? This way we could defeat them with-
out moving one single Soldier.

Well, I make fresh popcorn in the meantime... :popcorn2

[Rob Lister]

They can. and in doing so, and winning, get legal title to,..what?

I'm not saying this ruling means much but, were it actually in the interest of the state department to see to it this ruling be upheld, the 'damaged parties' could actually recover some, if not all, of the judgment.

[Bob Klase]

And why not 265 trillion?

Perhaps you should read the entire transcript of the proceedings. I'd bet there's some information in there that would help answer your question.

Your question could apply pretty much any legal proceeding that awards money from one party to another. When someone is killed in an auto accident and they're awarded 10 million we can always ask "why not 100 million? why not 10 billion?". Generally there's at least some reasoning as to how the amount was determined in the record.

Unless it's really that much better to form all your opinions based on nothing but headlines.

[fuelair]

Awesome stupidity. What's next - Iran sues back for all the
interventions on their soil and people who died because of that?
And why not 265 trillion? This way we could defeat them with-
out moving one single Soldier.

Well, I make fresh popcorn in the meantime... :popcorn2No offense, but who gives a flying (fecal material) about those primitive rectums.

[Oliver]

Perhaps you should read the entire transcript of the proceedings. I'd bet there's some information in there that would help answer your question.

Your question could apply pretty much any legal proceeding that awards money from one party to another. When someone is killed in an auto accident and they're awarded 10 million we can always ask "why not 100 million? why not 10 billion?". Generally there's at least some reasoning as to how the amount was determined in the record.

Unless it's really that much better to form all your opinions based on nothing but headlines.


I'm all for 10 million for every human life being killed by another
country. That would pretty much eliminate war.

But the cheekiness to demand money from a foreign country for
own dead soldiers while those countries get not a cent for their soldiers
dying as a result of US actions, is indeed unbelievable bold.

Iraqis really should sue America for every casualty as a result of
military actions. Like in case of the Clinton Aspirin-Factory incident
or this one:

http://news.google.com/news?source=ig&hl=en&q=U.S.+kills+14+civilians+&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

[Ziggurat]

Awesome stupidity. What's next - Iran sues back for all the interventions on their soil and people who died because of that? And why not 265 trillion? This way we could defeat them with-
out moving one single Soldier.

If I recall correctly, there are significant Iranian assets (I think around $8 billion) in the US which the US government "froze" after the 1979 hostage crisis. These assets, in principle, still belong to Iran, and could be released back to Iran at some point in the future. When a suit like this gets filed and won, I believe the plaintiffs can collect from those frozen assets, which means Iran can never regain that portion. Iran may not care, but the plaintiffs likely do. I do not believe Iran is still holding any frozen US assets, so I doubt they can do the same to us.

[Ziggurat]

I'm all for 10 million for every human life being killed by another
country. That would pretty much eliminate war.

Nonsense. All it would do is leave war in the hands of those who will never abide by laws. That's not actually an improvement.

But the cheekiness to demand money from a foreign country for
own dead soldiers while those countries get not a cent for their soldiers
dying as a result of US actions, is indeed unbelievable bold.

How many Iranian soldiers has the US killed? And when and where were they killed? Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about?

[Oliver]

Nonsense. All it would do is leave war in the hands of those who will never abide by laws. That's not actually an improvement.

How many Iranian soldiers has the US killed? And when and where were they killed? Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about?


Yes, I do:

Iraqis really should sue America for every casualty as a result of
military actions. Like in case of the Clinton Aspirin-Factory incident
or this one:

http://news.google.com/news?source=i...=1&sa=N&tab=wn (http://news.google.com/news?source=ig&hl=en&q=U.S.+kills+14+civilians+&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn)

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I do:

Pay attention: you said, in your original post, "What's next - Iran sues back for all the interventions on their soil and people who died because of that?" I asked how many Iranian soldiers the US has killed. You could have answered using Iranian civilians, since that would be included in your original claim. But what you cannot do is use Iraqi deaths in place of Iranians, since you were talking about Iranians, NOT Iraqis. So evidently you really don't know what you're talking about, because you can't even remember what you said.

[Oliver]

Pay attention: you said, in your original post, "What's next - Iran sues back for all the interventions on their soil and people who died because of that?" I asked how many Iranian soldiers the US has killed. You could have answered using Iranian civilians, since that would be included in your original claim. But what you cannot do is use Iraqi deaths in place of Iranians, since you were talking about Iranians, NOT Iraqis. So evidently you really don't know what you're talking about, because you can't even remember what you said.


I see you didn't get my point, which is: Soldiers die in conflicts.
That's a very essential point of this profession.

To sue governments for death soldiers is ridiculous - because if
everyone would sue Governments for dead soldiers as a result of
conflicts, the US would be bankrupt within a few years.

Especially in cases like unjustified invasions based on lousy Intelligence,
antiquated evidence and suspicions. Or like in case of Iran - foreign state
sponsored terrorism to topple the Iranian government.

[jsiv]

Especially in cases like unjustified invasions based on lousy Intelligence, antiquated evidence and suspicions. Or like in case of Iran - foreign state sponsored terrorism to topple the Iranian government.


This case is about holding Iran responsible for their "foreign state sponsored terrorism" in Lebanon.

It is not about US soldiers being killed in armed conflict with Iran on Iranian soil, like you seem to imply.

[Bob Klase]

I see you didn't get my point, which is: Soldiers die in conflicts.
That's a very essential point of this profession.

And you learned that while playing with your GI Joe doll?

To sue governments for death soldiers is ridiculous - because if everyone would sue Governments for dead soldiers as a result of
conflicts, the US would be bankrupt within a few years.

As has been pointed out earlier, anyone who so desires can sue any government for anything. If they win their suit then they can attempt to collect. If they succeed and bankrupt the US then a lot of people would be happy. Perhaps you should get in line.

Especially in cases like unjustified invasions based on lousy Intelligence, antiquated evidence and suspicions. Or like in case of Iran - foreign state sponsored terrorism to topple the Iranian overnment.

Why "especially" in those cases?

[Oliver]

And you learned that while playing with your GI Joe doll?

As has been pointed out earlier, anyone who so desires can sue any government for anything. If they win their suit then they can attempt to collect. If they succeed and bankrupt the US then a lot of people would be happy. Perhaps you should get in line.

Why "especially" in those cases?


A. No, I learned that during my service in the Bundeswehr.

B. I know that everyone can at least try to sue a foreign government.
And everyone should do that IMHO, it would be a lot of fun to watch
in contrast to just killing people and invading countries to make them
"Shut up".

C. "Especially" because you don't get away with burning down a house
either - just because you suspected it's residents were plotting to kill
some of your family members.

[Oliver]

This case is about holding Iran responsible for their "foreign state sponsored terrorism" in Lebanon.

It is not about US soldiers being killed in armed conflict with Iran on Iranian soil, like you seem to imply.


Oh, you think you can sue a Government once it provided State
Sponsored Terrorism that resulted in the Death of Soldiers in a
"non-typical armed conflict".

So you don't despise state sponsored terrorism per se if your
favored Countries would do it, is that correct? :confused:

[Kerberos]

This case is about holding Iran responsible for their "foreign state sponsored terrorism" in Lebanon.

It is not about US soldiers being killed in armed conflict with Iran on Iranian soil, like you seem to imply.

It's still a *********** joke. What do you think the chance is that the courts would take a similar case, let alone alone rule the same way if the culbrit was either a US ally or the US itself? Or even someone like China or Russia. I'd say slim to none, but that answer is probably two words to long.

[Ziggurat]

I see you didn't get my point, which is: Soldiers die in conflicts.

I'm not going to excuse false statements and unsupported claims on your behalf. If you want to say something other than what you actually said, then say something different than what you actually said. Don't blame me because I'm addressing what you actually wrote, that's your problem, not mine.

To sue governments for death soldiers is ridiculous - because if
everyone would sue Governments for dead soldiers as a result of
conflicts, the US would be bankrupt within a few years.

False, as already indicated above. There is a mechanism by which plaintiffs can collect from Iran. There is no such mechanism for Iran to collect from us.

Especially in cases like unjustified invasions based on lousy Intelligence,
antiquated evidence and suspicions. Or like in case of Iran - foreign state
sponsored terrorism to topple the Iranian government.

Once again, I think you're clueless on the facts. How many people were killed during the coup? And it didn't topple the Iranian government, it only removed the Prime Minister. Weren't you aware that the Shah of Iran was already the Shah of Iran, and had, in fact, been the one to nominate Mossadegh to the post of Prime Minister in the first place? Or the fact that the Parliament was disbanded by Mossadegh, not by the Shah? No, I suspect you weren't.

[Travis]

Hold on a sec. Does Oliver consider the presence of US Marines in Lebanon as an unjustified invasion?

[Oliver]

Hold on a sec. Does Oliver consider the presence of US Marines in Lebanon as an unjustified invasion?


No, I didn't looked into the current military presence of American Troops
in Lebanon. But I guess it's granted by the Lebanon Government, isn't it?

[jsiv]

There is no "current military presence of American Troops in Lebanon."

There was once, though.

A long time ago.

And Iran, through your pals in Hizb'Allah, killed hundreds of them.

"State Sponsored Terrorism" one could call it.

[Oliver]

There is no "current military presence of American Troops in Lebanon."

There was once, though.

A long time ago.

And Iran, through your pals in Hizb'Allah, killed hundreds of them.

"State Sponsored Terrorism" one could call it.


"Hizb'Allah" killed thousands - the US interventions since WW2 resulted
in tens of thousands deaths. Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever to
think that Hezbollah is worse than other kinds of murder. :(

And no - I noted your personal "pals in Hizb'Allah"-remark, but I never
felt nor did I say something like this.

[jsiv]

"Hizb'Allah" killed thousands


Why are you putting it in quotes? You don't feel that the more proper transliteration is appropriate?


- the US interventions since WW2 resulted in tens of thousands deaths. Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever to think that Hezbollah is worse than other kinds of murder. :(


Uhm.

I've read this part several times and I still don't know what to say.

It's fine for Iran to sponsor a terrorist group and help kill hundreds of Americans in another country because Germany was responsible for at least 50 million deaths in World War II? Is that what you're saying?


And no - I noted your personal "pals in Hizb'Allah"-remark, but I never felt nor did I say something like this.


I'm pretty sure I remember you making statements that were supportive of Hizb'Allah when they were fighting Israel, but okay, I will retract it.

[Oliver]

Why are you putting it in quotes? You don't feel that the more proper transliteration is appropriate?

Uhm.

I've read this part several times and I still don't know what to say.

It's fine for Iran to sponsor a terrorist group and help kill hundreds of Americans in another country because Germany was responsible for at least 50 million deaths in World War II? Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure I remember you making statements that were supportive of Hizb'Allah when they were fighting Israel, but okay, I will retract it.


If you meant the Holocaust, the amount of Jewish victims is estimated
to be about 6 million. And the number of victims during WW2 is about
12,000,000 casualties - Soldiers and Civilians.

I have no Idea how you came to the Number of 50 Million ... :confused:

And no - I never supported Hezbollah and I don't plan to do this in the
future. And I put it into quotation marks because the name I'm aware of
is Hezbollah, not as you put it: "Hizb'Allah" - meaning that I'm not familiar
with the term "Hizb'Allah".

[jsiv]

c5pIy5fpnNU

[Oliver]

c5pIy5fpnNU


Did he survive? :(

[Bob Klase]

B. I know that everyone can at least try to sue a foreign government. And everyone should do that IMHO

So when do you start? Or are you typical of so many people- you think "everyone" should do something, but you're not going to do it yourself.

[gtc]

Oliver.

I don't think you really understand the history of the conflict in Lebanon and I think that the number of people who died in World War II is more like 50 million than 12 million.

It seems you started this thread because it gave you another chance to make the US look bad. Unfortunately I think you started the thread without really understanding the issues. This just makes you look bad.

[Gurdur]

Next you will be announcing that the Pope is a Catholic, gtc.

[Travis]

No, I didn't looked into the current military presence of American Troops
in Lebanon. But I guess it's granted by the Lebanon Government, isn't it?

As far as I know there is no "current military presence of American Troops in Lebanon."

But in 1983 there was as part of a Multinational Peacekeeping Force that was there at the behest of the warring factions from the war that started in 1982. But Iranian trained and supplied terrorists detonated bombs near the barracks that housed French paratroopers and US Marines killing 58 of the French and 241 Americans.

So in order for you to get a proper analogous Iranian response you'd have to have an Iranian Peacekeeping force in another country that is attacked by terrorists trained and armed by the USA.

All this talk about other US military actions is inappropriate as they are not comparable situations.

[Kerberos]

As far as I know there is no "current military presence of American Troops in Lebanon."

But in 1983 there was as part of a Multinational Peacekeeping Force that was there at the behest of the warring factions from the war that started in 1982. But Iranian trained and supplied terrorists detonated bombs near the barracks that housed French paratroopers and US Marines killing 58 of the French and 241 Americans.

So in order for you to get a proper analogous Iranian response you'd have to have an Iranian Peacekeeping force in another country that is attacked by terrorists trained and armed by the USA.

BS. A situation has to be comparable, not identical. Unless you think that it's more acceptable to murder civilians than soldiers on UN missions that is? The simple fact is that the verdict is political because only Iran and perhaps a few other paria (sp?) states could ever be convicted in a case like this, and not because other states haven't done the same or worse. Tell me, and I adress this question to anyone who thinks this is a reasonable verdict: Do you believe that the US, any US ally or just a state like China or Russia could ever be convicted for the terrorist acts that they have sponsered? It is a simple question, I look forward to the answers

[Bob Klase]

Oliver.

I don't think you really understand the history of the conflict in Lebanon and I think that the number of people who died in World War II is more like 50 million than 12 million.

It is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people.

A little easier to read and given by country here:
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

Their total is 56,125,262.

[stanleywinthrop]

I see you didn't get my point, which is: Soldiers die in conflicts.



Here's a newsflash: Why don't you do some research on exactly what the U.S. Marines were doing in Beirut prior to October 23, 1983?

[WildCat]

Here's a newsflash: Why don't you do some research on exactly what the U.S. Marines were doing in Beirut prior to October 23, 1983?
Backing Phalangists and shelling Muslims in a "military intervention" of course! It's right there on Oliver's list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2776867&postcount=100)...
LEBANON 1982-84 Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

[plumjam]

how about the half million Iranians killed in the US sponsored proxy war, using their 'good buddy' Saddam Hussein?

[Ziggurat]

BS. A situation has to be comparable, not identical. Unless you think that it's more acceptable to murder civilians than soldiers on UN missions that is? The simple fact is that the verdict is political because only Iran and perhaps a few other paria (sp?) states could ever be convicted in a case like this, and not because other states haven't done the same or worse. Tell me, and I adress this question to anyone who thinks this is a reasonable verdict: Do you believe that the US, any US ally or just a state like China or Russia could ever be convicted for the terrorist acts that they have sponsered? It is a simple question, I look forward to the answers

Convictions are easy to obtain in a dictatorship regardless of the merits of the case. I've already pointed out a far more relevant criteria: do other countries have any method for collecting on a verdict against the US, China, or Russia? Because, let's face it, who honestly thinks there's any reason other than that for the fact that Iran didn't try this years ago?

[WildCat]

how about the half million Iranians killed in the US sponsored proxy war, using their 'good buddy' Saddam Hussein?
"US sponsored proxy war"? Could you detail this sponsorship, as well as a list of other countries that "sponsored" this war, and how much money they donated? And please cite the source of your "good buddy" quote. Thanks!





5 bucks says he just posts a pic of Rumsfeld and Saddam...

[Kerberos]

Convictions are easy to obtain in a dictatorship regardless of the merits of the case. I've already pointed out a far more relevant criteria: do other countries have any method for collecting on a verdict against the US, China, or Russia? Because, let's face it, who honestly thinks there's any reason other than that for the fact that Iran didn't try this years ago?

Of cause I don't think so, but you miss the point. I wasn't talking about other countries, I was talking about the US. The question was whether a US court would decide against either the US, US allies or even Russia or China for their state sponsored acts of terrorism? It's not like if iran is the only country that has sponsered terrorism, particuarly not if killing soldiers qualifies.

[Ziggurat]

Of cause I don't think so, but you miss the point. I wasn't talking about other countries, I was talking about the US. The question was whether a US court would decide against either the US, US allies or even Russia or China for their state sponsored acts of terrorism?

US courts might in principle find against the US for certain types of activities. But those activities would have to break US law, not just the law wherever they were done, and most of what passes for accusations of "terrorism" by the US doesn't come close. I also don't think we have any mechanism for collecting on verdicts against either Russia or China, let alone allies.

It's not like if iran is the only country that has sponsered terrorism, particuarly not if killing soldiers qualifies.

Killing soldiers isn't in itself enough to qualify.

[Beerina]

It's still a *********** joke. What do you think the chance is that the courts would take a similar case, let alone alone rule the same way if the culbrit was either a US ally or the US itself? Or even someone like China or Russia. I'd say slim to none, but that answer is probably two words to long.

I recall the Soviet government suing the (US's) National Hockey League, claiming all the former Rooskies they had as players were people the Russian army had a significant investment in, and the Soviets should be compensated.

I don't know what happened, but I hope it got thrown out, if, for no other reason, than that you can't sue for losses when you are a dictatorship, especially when the dictatees have no other choice but to work with you, and only you. And I'm not talking "no other choice", as in an ivory tower professor whining about wage slaves. I mean no other choice as in, "here's my thug. He's very real, as is the steel in the gun he has pointed at you. Obey or die. You have 5 seconds."

[sackett]

Um, y'know, I think possibly Oliver initially got Iran and Iraq mixed up, and hasn't sorted them out quite yet.

Oh well, who cares what Oliver types? But fuelair, I think it's going a little overboard to call the Iranians "primitive rectums." Of course that's the right characteriztion of radical Muslims overall, and I join you in it. But the Iranians, i.e., the Persians, are an anciently civilized people. They aren't tribals; they have a history and they're aware of it. If you mistake a Persian for an Arab, you'll get a patient explanation of how that isn't so. If you do it again, you'll score five Persian knuckles in your face.

The majority of Persians would, I think, like nothing so much as to join the wider world. If the price was a mere £1.3bn, they'd probably fork over with smiles and gratitude.

[plumjam]

"US sponsored proxy war"? Could you detail this sponsorship, as well as a list of other countries that "sponsored" this war, and how much money they donated? And please cite the source of your "good buddy" quote. Thanks!

5 bucks says he just posts a pic of Rumsfeld and Saddam...

good heavens, it even managed to sneak its way into the mainstream media:


"On 9 June, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war


more here:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html
note number 13.


I wouldn't want to see you lose your bet:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/





from: http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-the-dishonor-roll/2889/

"Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. Commerce Department approved at least $1.5 billion in exports with possible military applications from U.S. companies to Iraq, and the Agriculture Department administered a U.S.-goverment-guaranteed loan program that provided billions to Iraq. Thanks largely to the first George Bush, American taxpayers unwittingly co-signed for much of the loan money, and the government had to make good on these loans when Iraq later defaulted. Almost all of the transactions were legal under U.S. and international law at the time, even when the transactions either had direct military or dual-use (civilian and military) applications. Over and over again, the deals were encouraged and even abetted by the U.S. government, even after American officials had proof that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill Iranian troops and subdue Kurdish uprisings. In fact, the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration even provided Hussein’s regime with military intelligence during his bloody eight-year war with Iran."

All in all it certainly looks like sponsorship to me.

Oh, and the "good buddy" quote was my own.. aping the ridiculous faux-cowboy style of Bush Jr.

[Beerina]

how about the half million Iranians killed in the US sponsored proxy war, using their 'good buddy' Saddam Hussein?

A proxy war is not the same thing as preventing Iran from taking over Iraq, the much smaller country, and all its oil. Unless you're saying the US encouraged Iraq to start that war, of course.

[WildCat]

good heavens, it even managed to sneak its way into the mainstream media:
Good heavens, I asked you to put it in perspective! If you knew even a little about the history of Iraq, you'd know that the USSR and France were by far the biggest suppliers of arms to Saddam. And Germany supplied much of the chemical weapons. And your whole "dual use" crap you posted is just that - crap. The stuff we sent had a "dual use" as a possible biological warfare agent, and there is no record at all of Saddam making or using biological weapons.

[a_unique_person]

Nonsense. All it would do is leave war in the hands of those who will never abide by laws. That's not actually an improvement.



How many Iranian soldiers has the US killed? And when and where were they killed? Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about?

The USA was intimately involved in the fascist regime of the Shah of Iran. I would like to see all parties to such atrocities and abuses of human rights brought to justice.

[Ziggurat]

The USA was intimately involved in the fascist regime of the Shah of Iran. I would like to see all parties to such atrocities and abuses of human rights brought to justice.

Until you can start bringing the dictators themselves to justice, charging those in first-world countries who help them isn't going to do much good. All it will do is drive the sponsorship to countries like China and Russia, where the sponsors are untouchable, which frankly won't improve the human rights situation within those dictatorships. Welcome to reality. It isn't what any of us would like it to be.

[a_unique_person]

Until you can start bringing the dictators themselves to justice, charging those in first-world countries who help them isn't going to do much good. All it will do is drive the sponsorship to countries like China and Russia, where the sponsors are untouchable, which frankly won't improve the human rights situation within those dictatorships. Welcome to reality. It isn't what any of us would like it to be.

There is already a process being developed to do just that, only the USA isn't backing it. Despite the lack of support from the USA, it has already brought some dictators to justice.

[Ziggurat]

There is already a process being developed to do just that,

No, there isn't. The ICC has no ability to remove dictators from power, which means all any of them ever need to do is not lose power, which they're very much motivated to do anyways (and are often quite successful at it - most dictators die in office of old age). The ICC can only hope that already-toppled dictators get dragged before it, but that is, frankly, of very limited use. And there are no plans in place to give the ICC the power to remove dictators at any point in the future either.