Iranian sanctions

[Goofball]

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

[Montmorency]

Iran and America will make up before long. Iran just wanted a nuclear program to project power, to give it an ace up the sleeve. It doesn't gain any benefit from actually producing viable weapons. Now that Iran is on the defensive in the region, there isn't much point to being stubborn.

Anyway, the sanctions have been having a severe detrimental impact on their economy for a while (i.e. years) now.

[Beskar]

Thought things would lighten up a little after the elections. Isn't the new President more moderate?

[Fragony]

Thought things would lighten up a little after the elections. Isn't the new President more moderate?

He isn't the one who is in charge. The Iranians should be our natural allies 'we' totally screwed up by not giving the green wave our support.

Can't be spammed enough http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

[Empire*Of*Media]

He isn't the one who is in charge. The Iranians should be our natural allies 'we' totally screwed up by not giving the green wave our support.

Can't be spammed enough http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

and u forgot the 1953's CIA & MI6 plot of downfall of the most and the first democratic & wise Prime Minister of all Iran's History MOHAMAD MOSADEQ that they wanted Iran somehwere like Cuba in time of Batista that made Cuba rise a great dictatorship! while in Iran its Dictatorship was/is/will be the most fearful and harshful and worse dictatorship of humankind history!! u dont know because they cover all their great crimes, u must live here then you'll know what do i say!

they


they did coupe to fall of mosadeq because he was a great obstacle for British & USA's Colonization and depleting Iranian OIL!! after mosadeq's victory over nationalizing Iranian oil Usa & Britian decided to throw mosadeq out of power and bring back SHAH to be their loyal servant again! so they did the coupe and throwed mosadeq out of power by military and intelligence coupe of Britain and USA with each other and some Iranian Mercenaries and they destroyed a pure Democracy in Iran completely for more than 100 years i think!!
so should we thank American Saviour of the mankind (as they show us in HollyWood and Speechs) and their support of their type of Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir..._d%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

! but shah in the latest 70s shah thought he could be free of dependency from Western countries specially USA's Orders, and rised oil price and threatend USA & BRITAIN to not to give them oil and its money!!
well 5 years later from nowhere ISLAMIC fundamentalism rised and "death to shah" made a great embelm of revolution & freedom, while the people revolted, but the USA & BRITAIN's Installed taws and persons took the power. (as in history THE FIRST government that recognised ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM REVOLUTION OF IRAN was USA & BRITAIN!!!!!) becaouse they feared an independent and Powerful IRAN!! --------but after some time islamists thought they can have better power without US they betrayed their leaders in the west and got the religious people's support so there could be no way for another USA's Coupe!!! and the hostage crisis did happen! so USA couldnt repeat VIETNAM!! so they just learned a great lesson from the Iranian revolution and they did not repeat their DIRECT & OBVIOUS IMPERIALISM!! (and interfere!!)

and now that was why that Emirates (i mean Dubai) Emerged and a powerful in Nato of Turkey and...Pakistan were highly & greatly improved of their Economy & Military since Iran's Revolution, due to Iranian Strategic & Servantcy Losing for Western Imperialism specially USA !

and.....Europe has got its advantages in this dark revolution, due to Buying Iran's VERY VERY cheaper Oil than in times of the Shah and even other countries !!

while we suffer from more than 2000 Executions in a year (thats in times of peace!) that Iran is on the top of all countries with its lesser population with China, The Economical inflation of 47%(!!), the highering rate of theft 7 prostitution and selling childs, highering rate of divorce becouse of jobless people and Poverty &....................................!!!

but you have your Pleasure Imperialism !! and European Governments !!

[Pannonian]

And we stopped throwing foreign governments out of power for realpolitikal reasons a while ago, or at least learned to find a humanitarian facade for it first, so there's no point in talking about the Shah - we're not going to do it again. And after Iraq 03, we've learned not to throw foreign governments out of power for humanitarian reasons as well, as we catch more crap than it's worth, so there's not point in urging us to help in that - we're not going to do it again. Whatever will be will be, and if we want something, we're not going to spend billions to do it; we're just going to make sure the people we don't like won't be getting anything from us. Sure, we've been overbearing and domineering in the past, and people resent us for it. So we're going to stop doing that, and let things drop as they will. And people who've criticised us for the former can see how they like the latter. In the case of your supposed Kurdish nation, I suppose they won't like it very much, as you're not in power, others are in power over you, and yet others who are less gentle than us are happy to take over where we're leaving things. Oh well, people are going to dislike us anyway, but not doing anything is cheaper for us.

PS. we should never have overthrown Saddam in 2003; that was imperialism pure and simple. We should have let him continue to shaft his chunk of Kurds, as was his right to do. I hope my government learns from that and never again does anything to help the Kurdish people without getting advance payment to make the action profitable. And if the Kurds can't pay - well, that's their bad luck, and they can continue under their existing governments.

[Sarmatian]

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

Please use the same line of reasoning next time when a terrorist attack in the west happen.

[Goofball]

Please use the same line of reasoning next time when a terrorist attack in the west happen.

That's quite a stretch. I'm saying that refusing to do business with a rogue state is a valid strategy, in that eventually its citizens will move for change on their own in order to alleviate the suffering that is being directly caused by their government's policies.


Is it your position that murdering civilians who live in countries with democratically elected governments is a valid strategy, in that eventually the fear of being murdered will prompt them to get rid of their democratically elected governments and install shariah law?

I don't think I quite follow you.

[Sarmatian]

That's quite a stretch. I'm saying that refusing to do business with a rogue state is a valid strategy, in that eventually its citizens will move for change on their own in order to alleviate the suffering that is being directly caused by their government's policies.


Is it your position that murdering civilians who live in countries with democratically elected governments is a valid strategy, in that eventually the fear of being murdered will prompt them to get rid of their democratically elected governments and install shariah law?

I don't think I quite follow you.

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

An interesting argument.

You are brutally consistent in your attack of anything that seemingly fig-leafs political action as anything aside from an exercise of raw power (usually force).

Do you conceive of any instance where a state might pursue some "national interest" beyond its own borders that would be acceptable? Under what circumstances, if any, is it valid to impose sanctions; use influence to thwart some other state's objectives, or use military force?

[Goofball]

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

The basic concept is not the same, nor is the morality.

If a person takes actions that you believe are threatening to you or are not in accordance with your views, you are well within your rights to isolate yourself from them and have no more social or economic relations with them. You are not, however, within your rights to murder one of their children while they sleep in order to bring them around to your way of thinking.

I'll ask you again: are you saying terrorism is a valid tool to use to implement social or political change?

[Montmorency]

To say that the sanctions are responsible for deaths is rather meaningless, as even welfare-state benefits could be found to be responsible for deaths. Most Islamic terrorists don't have the goal of forcing target countries to change policies, at least not beyond the medium-term - most Islamic terrorists want nothing less than the utter destruction or subjugation of the Western world, despite the futility of such a cause. But Iran isn't that sort of entity, so whatever.

Just keep in mind this geopolitical rule-of-thumb: Nothing saves so many lives as murder.

people in dictatorships are completely innocent.

They're actually equally culpable and accountable, if one is appraising the situation fairly. On both ends, the populace is equally inactive toward the actual geopolitical events. Your line subtly infantilizes citizens of authoritarian states, while unduly elevating the consciousness of democratic peoples at the further expense of the former. In fact, they are just one and the same. It's one of the horrible secrets of civilization, maybe.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He isn't the one who is in charge. The Iranians should be our natural allies 'we' totally screwed up by not giving the green wave our support.

Can't be spammed enough http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

The quickest way to doom political change in Iran is to make it look like the US (and to a lesser extent, the west as a whole) is orchestrating it. Moving to support the (overhyped) green movement would've killed more Nedas while setting back the chance of change in Iran.

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

The Iranian *people* are widely in favor of developing a nuclear energy program, in no small part because they have been told they can't have it. It's hard for me to fault them since it's an attitude as American as the state of Texas. If Canada was told by a great power that it must give up something it takes pride in or face sanctions, would you yield so quickly?

Personally, I think the sanctions as a whole are stupid. Want to neutralize Iran as a threat to the US/west? Lift the sanctions, ship them our fast food, ipads, and porn.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Besides, it makes sense for Iran to pursue nuclear. They desperately need to wean their economy off the subsidised oil.

[Montmorency]

Want to neutralize Iran as a threat to the US/west?

The problem was that Iran was threatening to precipitate a Cold War with Saudi Arabia. This was possible because of the weakness brought to Iraq by American devastation. Now that Syria is in civil war and Iraq is looking similar, Iran is on the defensive. Coupled with the ongoing sanctions, they're hurting from it all; they have nothing to gain by NWMD mummery now. Shouldn't be long before a solid bargain is struck that lets Iran move on with its civilian nuclear ambitions.

[HoreTore]

Besides, it makes sense for Iran to pursue nuclear. They desperately need to wean their economy off the subsidised oil.

They need the power, sure.

But they also need the bomb to avoid being attacked. Nuclear weapons are primarily defensive, and the greatest guarantee you can get to avoid an invasion. With Iran having enemies everywhere, it's only natural that they want nukes.

[Montmorency]

I support the sanctions against Iran not because I think we are right and they are wrong, but because Iran has challenged our hegemony in the Middle East and aligned itself against our proxies in the region. Global politics is a zero sum game - if you are not winning you are losing; if you are not protecting and growing your power and influence, someone else is gaining it.

Disagree.

I support the sanctions against Iran not because I think we are right and they are wrong, but because Iran has challenged our hegemony in the Middle East and aligned itself against our proxies in the region. Global politics is a zero sum game - if you are not winning you are losing; if you are not protecting and growing your power and influence, someone else is gaining it.

Agree.

The mental contortions some of you are going through to say that they are not terrorism just reinforces that they are.

What I'm saying is that considering sanctions as terrorism tells us nothing, since any policy that resuls in major economic loss, intimidates a population, and creates a compulsion for a government to alter its policies is by definition terrorism. Yes, yes, we get it - the US is the greatest terrorist-nation in the history of the world, so what?

Do you believe this?

Yes. Even if the US had somehow done absolutely nothing overt to so much as influence any Muslim-majority country up to the new millenium, major attacka by one organization or another would still have been planned against large American targets, up to and including targets on the mainland.

[Sarmatian]

Disagree.



Agree.

I take it you didn't mean to agree and disagree with the same quote.

What I'm saying is that considering sanctions as terrorism tells us nothing, since any policy that resuls in major economic loss, intimidates a population, and creates a compulsion for a government to alter its policies is by definition terrorism. Yes, yes, we get it - the US is the greatest terrorist-nation in the history of the world, so what?

So nothing in practical terms.

Understanding you're not the "right side" but simply the "other side" is very important for this discussion

Yes. Even if the US had somehow done absolutely nothing overt to so much as influence any Muslim-majority country up to the new millenium, major attacka by one organization or another would still have been planned against large American targets, up to and including targets on the mainland.

I'd disagree.

Terrorism is a reaction. Why aren't other western nations attacked? Why isn't Brazil attacked by the middle eastern terrorist organizations? Or Argentina or Norway? It would be interesting if someone would make a list of countries totally non-involved in the middle east in any way and count the number of attacks on them by middle eastern terrorist organizations and then compare with countries that were involved. I think most people would be surprised.

[Goofball]

The Iranian *people* are widely in favor of developing a nuclear energy program, in no small part because they have been told they can't have it. It's hard for me to fault them since it's an attitude as American as the state of Texas. If Canada was told by a great power that it must give up something it takes pride in or face sanctions, would you yield so quickly?

I guess that what myself and my fellow citizens would have to decide is, what is more important to us: nukes or medicine? If the answer was "nukes," then so be it, but we would have no right to blame our lack of medicine on the "great power."

The big difference is that because I live in Canada, a country whose government generally plays properly with others in the global community, nobody in the world really cares if we build nuclear reactors. In fact, we have had them for years, and guess what? We have never used them to produce material to build nuclear weapons of our own.

But because the Iranians have had such a wildcard government for so long, the world at large generally does not believe them when they say they want nuclear technology only for energy purposes.

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

[Montmorency]

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

That's obviously totally unacceptable, and a juvenile abuse of power.

"Wildcard government"? No more than the USA's.

A good compromise would be for the IAEA to oversee and supervise the program and for the international community to invest technology and expertise into it. In exchange for an end to sanctions and cooperation toward viable commercial reactors, have the Iranian government temporarily abjure its authority over the details, and progressively loosen the restraints and oversight over some period, allowing for expedition of the process in the case of reforms to increase political openness and so-on.

'Maybe we'll let you do it in a generation if you completely change your political structure and be very obedient to us in the meantime' is not a compromise of any sort, it's just taking the piss, and it's reprehensible.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The problem was that Iran was threatening to precipitate a Cold War with Saudi Arabia. This was possible because of the weakness brought to Iraq by American devastation. Now that Syria is in civil war and Iraq is looking similar, Iran is on the defensive. Coupled with the ongoing sanctions, they're hurting from it all; they have nothing to gain by NWMD mummery now. Shouldn't be long before a solid bargain is struck that lets Iran move on with its civilian nuclear ambitions.

Hopefully. Of course, there have been previous offers from third party governments to work out an arrangement where Iran keeps its nuclear program and the byproducts that could be enriched for weapons would be sent elsewhere. The US turned them down at the time because the powers that be had no interest in negotiations that let up on Iran.

I guess that what myself and my fellow citizens would have to decide is, what is more important to us: nukes or medicine? If the answer was "nukes," then so be it, but we would have no right to blame our lack of medicine on the "great power."

The big difference is that because I live in Canada, a country whose government generally plays properly with others in the global community, nobody in the world really cares if we build nuclear reactors. In fact, we have had them for years, and guess what? We have never used them to produce material to build nuclear weapons of our own.

But because the Iranians have had such a wildcard government for so long, the world at large generally does not believe them when they say they want nuclear technology only for energy purposes.

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

The latest intelligence we have on Iran suggests their nuclear program does not involve weapons in any way. What Israel (and thus, the US) is objecting to is Iran having the capabilities to develop the capabilities to build nuclear weapons. The Iranian people who want a nuclear energy program for reasons of both economy and national pride. As for their government, they seem to be fairly rational, just unpleasant. Though not really any more unpleasant than the Saudis (and I would say the Iranians are a lot less unpleasant on the whole).

In the mean time, we can continue celebrating sanctions that take 30 years to... make Iran a moderate regional power.

[Montmorency]

It's at least noteworthy that Obama recently took the time to mention the 1953 coup again, in addition to (seemingly) upgrading the diplomatic status of Iran by putting Kerry in charge. Hopefully not a waste of everyone's time.

It's also a matter of what message the US wants to send to the world. Some kind of deal along the outlines mentioned in the thread would actually be a diplomatic and political victory for the US, since ultimately the US would be shown to have won out in its position, while at least giving Iran some benefit after a lost economic decade and allowing it to quietly cut its losses. It would be a bad show to take the 'we don't win unless you're eating dirt' approach.

'Stop hitting yourself, pussy! Stop hitting yourself!' vs. 'We are terrible in battle, but merciful in victory. In the words of some Russian dude: "We will outlast you."'