(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

Are you talking about the number of people infected with HIV? If you are, you're both way off. It is 41 million and considering only about 80% know they are infected the WHO estimates it is over 50 million. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids

Public health experts, international organizations, and scientific studies agree that it is the Catholic churches stance on condom use that is a major contributor to the infection rate, especially in sub Saharan Africa. The Catholic Church manages roughly 25% of all healthcare facilities globally, including an enormous network of hospitals and clinics across Africa. When these religious institutions preach that condom use is a sin, it means sexually active people or wives who have unfaithful husbands are completely unprotected. Although Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged for the first time that using a condom to prevent the transmission would help, the institutional ban was not lifted.

I know that. He just seemed to take exception to me referring to him as "he" for some reason.

Quote " Secondly, your guess as to numbers was way out. I think the UN estimates 570,000 worldwide, which is actually a major medical triumph. I am amazed it is so low."

I can get most UN data. And that is per year, 2025.

But fair enough. The man in the white gown saying "no condoms" does not spread aids. After 2010 that is.

@RedTagAlan ,

I think we can exonerate the Vatican from causing many AIDS deaths currently (not saying it never happened).

Firstly, the Vatican allow condoms if there is a known AIDS risk:

‘The Vatican does not generally allow or promote the use of condoms, but Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged in 2010 that using a condom to reduce HIV infection risk can be a "first step" of moral responsibility in specific, exceptional cases’

Source: NYT

Secondly, your guess as to numbers was way out. I think the UN estimates 570,000 worldwide, which is actually a major medical triumph. I am amazed it is so low.

Finally, I searched out whether AIDS was much higher in catholic than non catholic countries and the answer was that it isn’t. There are a bunch of reasons for not using condoms that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

While the Vatican's institutional opposition to condom use has drawn sharp criticism from global health agencies, epidemiological data shows that the national prevalence of HIV and subsequent AIDS mortality are heavily dictated by geography, economics, and healthcare infrastructure rather than dominant religious affiliation’

Source: National Institute for Health.

I expected the false equivalence thing re the Catholic Church and Iran. Do I really need to post links on the connection between Condoms and HIV, and poverty ? Or can we take that as a given that that religion also impacts on millions of people worldwide?

HIV alone is in the millions. About 1.5 to 3 million according to a site I found. But I won't link it cos it's a crap site. It's an, ahem, banned/restricted subject here. I really have to say here- google it. Because I can't. And post the result you get.

Now, when you say this, quote " They had plenty of other things they could have usefully done with their oil revenues, such as create a higher standard of living for their people.".

Hey, for sure. Apart from the issue with sanctions that is. You know, cos they dared to chuck America out (and the west) in 79, and America never forgave them for that. Gotta be punished. Same as with Cuba. The whole "we do not like them, nobody else should.

Quote "I do think that, for all of us, a Trump ‘win’ based on his latest goals (open sea lanes and Iran giving up highly enriched fissile uranium) would be a lot better than a Trump loss. Wouldn’t you agree?"

The sea lanes were open just fine. The Uranium was 60% enriched as I recall. It's 90% for bomb. And why did Iran enrich beyond the 25% or something needed for reactors ? My guess is because Trump tore up the JCPOA. So no. I don't agree. Because things were fine with the JCPOA. And Trump tore it up.

This even goes to the protests that were so brutally put down. That has been discussed here already. Did the US have a hand in that ?

Let me know what you get for the aids deaths. As I say, I can't get anything reliable.

Edit to add. Disclaimer. The above does not mean I am anti Catholic in any way. I am not binary with a lot of things. I am not saying " overthrow the Pope". I am just saying there is a bigger picture here.

Red has alread said on multiple occassions he is a man, it's no secret.

You already made clear you don't admire him, I do not need to wonder anymore

I wish I could share your faith in Trump and his administration not using nukes, I concede the chances are small but Trump is unpredictable and safeguards are almost non-existent.

You do know that I got accused of doxxing Red, just for referring to him as “he”?

Despite the fact he openly identified as male on a different thread. So apparently we shouldn’t refer to people on here as he/she.

Just because someone doesn’t think Trump will use nukes, that doesn’t make them a Trump supporter. It’s just an opinion and I expect based on cold logic not emotion.

@TopPocketFind ,

‘He is very insistent that Trump will not use nukes, that is his prerogative ofcourse.’

It is indeed my prerogative 😄. However, how you link that to me ‘having faith’ or ‘a little admiration’ for him only you know.

Using a Nuke is so big that even Putin knows (I think) that the repercussions would be horrendous. And Trump is not as ruthless as Putin by a long shot.

In theory (which surprised me, as I only just looked it up), Trump has the authority to use a nuke without anyone agreeing with him. However, his identity does need to be verified by the secretary of defence and then it needs to be passed down the chain of command to the people who physically do the launching. I just don’t see someone not stopping this order en route, whatever the legal implications.

I think Trump launching a Nuke on Iran is fantasy football. Global markets would collapse and the entire world, including his voter base, would be horrified and disgusted.

Why?

He is very insistent that Trump will not use nukes, that is his prerogative ofcourse.

I am less sure.

Good to see you not wasting this opportunity to have a go at me

You suggested that @Newbutoldfather has “a lot of faith in Trump … or maybe some admiration?”

No surprise that you got challenged on that.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘What I am doing is using the same scale to measure different systems. Do I think the Vatican should be bombed out of existence because I do not agree with their religion ? No. And I apply the same to Iran. Do I think change is needed in Iran ? Of course.’

That is creating an equivalence between Iran and the Vatican, one I would very much disagree with. Otherwise, why bring up The Vatican at all? It’s not that I don’t understand your argument, because I do. I just disagree with it.

I think there is a ‘smell’ test here. Iran is egregiously worse for the world than the Vatican. The Vatican also cannot pass or enforce laws in the material world.

‘Do I think Trump is the man do get that change ? Totally not.’

Well, I guess there are two issues here. Did he go about it the right way? I think we will find agreement here that the campaign has been a shambles and,
by most measures, Trump has failed to meet his (not clearly set out) objectives.

The second issue is should the U.S have got involved with Iran at all, which also wraps into the broader issue of whether we should have global policemen, or accept that states have autonomy, however badly the leaders use it and should be left in peace. I do think that there was a case for intervening in Iran based on a meaningful coalition, warnings, negotiations etc. And the enforcement would have to be left to the U.S and Israel, although the putative ‘allies’ could have made a symbolic contribution.

‘And it's full circle to the JCPOA. That for some reason, Trump tore up.’

I don’t think that is an excuse for Iran going all out to build a nuke and finance a network of terror throughout the region. They had plenty of other things they could have usefully done with their oil revenues, such as create a higher standard of living for their people.

I mean, all of the above issues are complex and worth discussing. However, we are where we are, regardless of how we got here.

I do think that, for all of us, a Trump ‘win’ based on his latest goals (open sea lanes and Iran giving up highly enriched fissile uranium) would be a lot better than a Trump loss. Wouldn’t you agree?

Quote " Are you seriously making an argument that Iranian society delivers good outcomes to its citizens on any measure?"

No. I am not. And fine well you know that.

What I am doing is using the same scale to measure different systems. Do I think the Vatican should be bombed out of existence because I do not agree with their religion ? No. And I apply the same to Iran. Do I think change is needed in Iran ? Of course.

Do I think Trump is the man do get that change ? Totally not.

And it's full circle to the JCPOA. That for some reason, Trump tore up.

@RedTagAlan ,

There are so many levels of ‘care’ from the torturer to the believer in trickle down economics who believes that donating 1% of his wealth to philanthropy makes him a very caring person.

I don’t want to get bogged down in catholic beliefs vs Muslim beliefs.

I think, ultimately, that the western enlightenment had value and the liberal democratic model is a lot better than alternatives.

Is it perfect? Definitely not. Is it capable of going askew? Definitely. However, the alternatives have proved far worse according to my values.

The thing about modest dress is confined to very few countries in terms of physical enforcement and national law.

Are you seriously making an argument that Iranian society delivers good outcomes to its citizens on any measure?

So you don't think the Pope cares ? After all, there is that condom thing that does not help the poor in poor nations.

This whole thing of "women must dress modestly or they will go to hell" is not exactly confined to Iran, and their religion.

Plenty of Christian Nationalists in the Whitehouse are on that bandwidth too.

@RedTagAlan ,

I think that you have an interesting way of thinking and that is a really good question.

I am close to an atheist, like you, so I guess I see the job of a government is to make their people happy on earth.

And I believe in the Western values of liberal democracy and individual freedom and rights.

Do I know what is going on in a theocrat’s brain? No I don’t. Maybe the religious police care deeply for the women they lash for not wearing the right clothes, as they believe they are making eternal bliss more likely for the whippees.

I suspect, every leader, no matter how brutal, believes jn their own mind that they care for their people. However, I think we have to define ‘care for’ in a way that most people would agree with.

So, I guess without going back to Descartes and discussing the value (or otherwise) of Indicative freedom, I don’t think that theocrats care for their people according to a definition I (and many) are happy with.

So you now agree that I didnt say you admire him and there was no need for your snarky riposte about admiring the Iranian regime.

We shall move on.

@TopPocketFind ,

‘I hit a nerve there.
I didn't say that you admired him, I just wondered if there was a bit of that in your posts’

That’s what I would call a very fine distinction aka sophistry.

I, I suspect like many, find Trump difficult to comprehend and deal with. I mean, he can say whatever he likes. And the World does listen and try to interpret him. That is a fact, not an opinion.

I also do think that you have to respect his position, whatever you think of him as a person.

There are a lot of people who want to spend their time ‘calling him out’, mainly on the internet. I don’t get the point of that. I guess if it makes you feel good, go for it. But, unless you are a U.S citizen with a vote, berating others for not ‘calling him out’ strongly enough is slightly loony.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people are finding ways to work with him. Will Canada benefit from Carney going to war with him? I doubt it.

Fortunately, time will cure us of the Trump problem. I suspect he may be emasculated in the mid terms, and he is 80 anyway. The U.S system, even if it is taking flak, will hold up and presidents who fail to deliver benefits to their citizens will be voted out.

(and, if you are unpopular enough, messing around with postal ballots and gerrymandering (which both sides are guilty of) won’t save you).

From my point of view, when I see things like this, what you just posted, quote: "But the Iranian leaders don’t care about their people at all.", my reaction is, how do you know that to be able to state it as fact.

I am atheist, to near the point where I am against religion. But I am not against it, because UN HR charter etc. My belief in freedom of religion etc overrides my dislike of it.

Iran is a Theocracy. So when you say "the Iranian leaders don’t care about their people at all", what are you basing that on ? The country is being run on religious grounds, according to their religious laws, so it appears there is some sort of "spiritual" thing going on. Where the leaders see themselves as putting the "souls" of the people first, or however it works in their religion.

Or do you think the leaders do not believe in their own religion ?

I know nowt about their religion. But I am ex Christian. So this next bit is not a whataboutism. Just an example from a religion I do know.

Mother Teresa. It is well documented that she saw poverty and suffering as a blessing. She believed a long painful death made people closer to her God. Personally, I find that abhorrent, but the Church made her a saint.

I would not say that she "don’t care about their people at all", I would say she did care. I don't, however, see that as very good care. Because from my point of view, there is no God. So for me, give them meds and real care. Do something about poverty, rather than celebrate it as being 'holy".

Using that example, do you still say "the Iranian leaders don’t care about their people at all", or are you willing to concede that perhaps you are looking at things through a different lens to others ?

I don't think that's okay either, but as we've had the binary 'you support Iran' accusation previously and it didn't end well (some useful contributors left) I didn't want us to tread that path again.

I hit a nerve there.

I didn't say that you admired him, I just wondered if there was a bit of that in your posts.

He basically can say whatever he likes.

‘I suspect that you are conflating recognising Iranian success in asymmetrical warfare with admiration for the regime itself. Armies around the world are learning from Iran, in this war.’

I am also impressed by the way Iran have fought. I do think that they have had a lot of help though, from both Russia and China.

@trumpredcard ,

‘Please don't make this assumption as it demeans contributors' posts and we've been down this road before with a similar accusation.’

I mean, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

Why do you think it is ok to say that you think that I admire Trump?

Iran did have better options than the ones it is choosing

Such as?

(I could, to be fair, suspect you quietly admire the Iranian regime).

Please don't make this assumption as it demeans contributors' posts and we've been down this road before with a similar accusation.

I suspect that you are conflating recognising Iranian success in asymmetrical warfare with admiration for the regime itself. Armies around the world are learning from Iran, in this war.