maxthrusta330
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:24 am

UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:46 pm

UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...f-sanctions-harm-iranians-17409619

According to the report, the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine, so how come the main- stream media isn't questioning the ethical aspects of the sanctions?

How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?

For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:59 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:33 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Agree, but to cater to those of other persuasions I would respond to the article by asking this question.
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:41 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

Well, duh...

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?

There is no possible way to do that. If you can come up with a way, please enlighten us.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:30 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
There is no possible way to do that. If you can come up with a way, please enlighten us.

I cannot, I need those who follow the line that sanctions are immoral to give us the alternative, indeed the thread starter does seem to have a problem with war so....
Rather than just bashing I think they should be offering alternatives.
Bash fest really acomplish very little.

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?
Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?
 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:34 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
According to the report, the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine, so how come the main- stream media isn't questioning the ethical aspects of the sanctions?

The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality. You can be sure that any Iraqi parent who lost a child will remember that for a long time. In the First World, however, we will wonder why they all don't love us.

The new sanctions will have the same effect on Iran. It will merely reinforce the image of the US as the evil 'Shaitan' who preaches love and yet can coldly justify the suffering of innocents. Ditto for all the wedding parties blown up in error by drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Our Foreign policy has always been a mess, but more so when we decided we needed really clever Cold and Second World War emigres and neo-cons to intellectualize what your poor average American cannot grasp.

To be fair, media like the New York Times and especially the New Yorker have been very good at covering these ethical issues, but the rest of the media is busier covering the latest disappearance of middle-class blond children. Its always a lot easier to relate to people like us than to others half a world away.

Al said and done, there is an underlying strain of decency that puts America on the right path eventually, though I'm not sure yet where it comes from.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7066
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:51 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):

Firstly - It's not covered because nobody cares.

It's deemed far more important if we know the latest rumours about Paris Hilton getting her tits out because that's what people want to read. Eyes sells advertising, advertising pays the bills. Profits roll in.

Case in point. The most popular article on Huff post for about a week was the story of danish magazine purporting to publish pics of a Brit princess wearing no panties.

Secondly, there is only so much people can worry about. Iranian medicine availability isn't high on the list when little jimmy can't get an x box from Santa this Christmas.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:21 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?

With great difficulty, and it may be virtually impossible. We tried it with North Korea, but that was only possible because of Kim Jong Il's personality quirks. Banning scotch, porn and golf equipment isn't going to make much of a difference to those who rule Iran.

Quoting comorin (Reply 5):
The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality. You can be sure that any Iraqi parent who lost a child will remember that for a long time. In the First World, however, we will wonder why they all don't love us.

The new sanctions will have the same effect on Iran. It will merely reinforce the image of the US as the evil 'Shaitan' who preaches love and yet can coldly justify the suffering of innocents.

All of this is true. Sanctions are very messy. But what is that alternative? Just let Iran be and let them progress with their nuclear program? That's not an acceptable option, and just skipping the sanctions and going in militarily is clearly undesirable as well. I completely understand why people don't like sanctions, but unless they can suggest a better solution, sanctions are what we have.

The best phrase in the article is this:

The currency crisis has put Iranian leaders under the most pressure from dissent since they crushed the opposition movement after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

You didn't see that with Iraq, and you don't see it in North Korea. So that is progress. Hopefully the Ahmedinejad regime will be forced out of power, and then you may start to see real progress, and an accompanying lifting of sanctions.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:27 pm

For those saying "this is how it's meant to be" or "who cares" should really read the 9/11 commission report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

He = Osama bin Laden

“He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

A large, often forgotten reason for 9/11 was the sanctions against the Iraqi people. I read a dialogue by Osama bin Laden saying that million Iraqi children died from them... although I'm not sure where he got the number from and it may be high, the sanctions by the US caused many Iraqi civilians to die, helping brew anti-American sentiment.

Is our quarrel with the Iranian people? Should we punish them due to the actions of their crazy government? Regardless, the fact that:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine

is unacceptable. The goal is to get the citizens to rise up, I get it, but we don't need to kill them at the same time. That is unjustifiable


PS: I'm not an Osama bin Laden apologist. In order to diffuse the problem, you actually need to understand the enemy instead of assume the enemy is just evil and marching on. That doesn't solve anything
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
A large, often forgotten reason for 9/11 was the sanctions against the Iraqi people.

It's not forgotten, it's just disregarded. Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
The goal is to get the citizens to rise up, I get it, but we don't need to kill them at the same time.

Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
It's not forgotten, it's just disregarded. Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

Yes, I suppose that could be the case. I always thought offering the bare, basic, and critical necessities with a sanction would work better. That way you still get the people riled up by not having products but at the same time show that you don't want them dying. It would breed more good will towards the US, or at least, less anger

[Edited 2012-10-06 10:19:22]
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:23 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:27 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.

  
That's like saying withdrawing from Afghanistan would be because the terrorists say so. If the terrorists said to breathe, that doesn't mean we should just hold our breathe.

There is a lot that goes into decisions. Like it or not, sometimes the terrorist groups have valid points, even if their methods are wrong. I agree that we meddle too much in the Middle East, doesn't mean I am bowing to their demands, I rationally came to this conclusion on my own. There is definitely a point where we should stand our ground with them (like in the youtube video incident, it is free speech and we shouldn't take it down, even if the terrorists react)
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?

For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?

The sanctions in Iran were emposeed by the UN, which includes many other countries other than the US. If you wish to get into the Moral high ground discussion it should be mentioned why these sanctions exists.

1. Iran has continously threatened to wipe israel off the map
2. Iran funds hezbollah and Hamas.
3. Iran refuses to sign onto a nuclear treaty and allow inspecitions by UN Nuclear regulatory agencies.
4. With numbers 3 and 1 , Iran has highly lent itself to the path of war , and specifically war with weapons of mass destruction.

Should they contunue on the path of #4 , medications will be a far cry from what will be needed and occur . So for the Moral high ground, I would prefer Iran and it's people suffer a bit, in order to bring about change that keeps Iran from it's current path of subtle aggression that could blossom.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:01 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

The Iranian government could agree to demands for inspections to ensure they don't have a nuclear weapons program and most of the sanctions would go away. Who is really committing the injustice there? If al-Qaeda really cares so much about the Iranian people, why don't we hear them leveling some blame at the Iranian government as well?

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.

Is denying Iran a nuclear weapons program not a goal worth pursuing even if it pisses some people off?

With one notable exception (Cuba), you normally don't see the US placing sanctions without a damn good reason for doing so.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 5):
The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality.

Funny how they are now the "Bush sanctions", when they were imposed by the UN and the president who spent the most time enforcing them was Clinton.

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

Possible, but doubtful. We heard the same BS from Iraq pre-2003. Yes, there were massive shortages, because those in power were using the funds meant for food and medicine and and diverting them to reinforce their own power base, security apparatuses, and secret accounts. Saddam had something like $2 billion in his accounts at the time of the invasion. Surely you don't think he was saving his salary...
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7881
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:44 pm

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

   your answer right there.

This is why we nuked Japan - to get their population to pressure their government to surrender. Of course a different outcome occurred but they surrendered nonetheless.

We're not gonna nuke Iran but we're gonna cut them off so they run dry and actually communicate with us about what they're doing. Iran is a dangerous nation and my Iranian friends always tell me that they wish their government would change and be more friendly to the west.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Is denying Iran a nuclear weapons program not a goal worth pursuing even if it pisses some people off?

Not sure how a comment relating to not letting terrorists dictate foreign policy became denying Iran a nuclear weapons program but to address this later specific issue.

I do not see anything positive from Iran having nuclear weapons but I can't find anything that gives us the right to deny them. They are a sovereign nation so why should they not have the rights we think we have because we are a sovereign nation?

If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears. It certainly can't be based on what we fear they might do, because other nations have equal right to fear what the "good" nuclear nations will do.

Usually the easiest way to find if something makes sense or not is to reverse the situation. What do you think US would do if Iran said we can't have nuclear weapons? What do you think the reaction would be if Iran bombed nuclear facilities in US? We can take some of the political edge away but changing Iran to developed, democratic countries without nuclear weapons making the demands. Just look at how often we see people here on airliners.net argue that people from outside US do not have the right to comment about US.

I am not able to see any way that we have the right to stop them.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
Not sure how a comment relating to not letting terrorists dictate foreign policy became denying Iran a nuclear weapons program

Because that's the issue here. If you want to consider the public perception of sanctions, that's fine, but an Iranian nuclear weapons program is a big deal. This isn't one of those things where you can say "we wouldn't derive a whole of benefit from it, and it'll piss a lot of people off, so let's not do it."

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
I do not see anything positive from Iran having nuclear weapons but I can't find anything that gives us the right to deny them. They are a sovereign nation so why should they not have the rights we think we have because we are a sovereign nation?

Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

You'll notice that not even Iran has stated that they want to develop a nuclear weapon. They claim their program is about nuclear power. And if it's just that, then I have no problem with it. But they're acting like it's a whole lot more than that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears.

Because we already have it. From a purely practical standpoint, that cat is out of the bag - the technology cannot be uninvented. If we were starting from a point where nobody had them, then you'd have a point about a double standard. But you'll note that every international agreement from the Cold War onwards with regard to nuclear weapons has been about reduction, not proliferation. It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:43 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears.

The technology is out, scientist and engineers have made a number of dual use items where all one needs is money, so information on how and the equipment to build are readily available, funny thing is that it is more difficult to build a power station.

On the other hand, who has the USA, Britian, France, China and Russia threatned with nuclear destruction?
The rest of the world who do not and are not in the process of developing nuclear weapons look to those who have such weapons to be responsible with the power they grant.
A point I would make is that if every country in the world thought that the only way to deal with the 5 established nuclear powers was to have nuclear weapons, one can rest assured that much more countries would be attempting to develop them even at the cost of the demise of their population.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:53 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

Why is our fear more valid than their fear? And so what if they want to spend more money on weapons. They are sovereign nations.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You'll notice that not even Iran has stated that they want to develop a nuclear weapon. They claim their program is about nuclear power. And if it's just that, then I have no problem with it. But they're acting like it's a whole lot more than that.

Again, so why does our fear justify restrictions on a sovereign nation?

To EU the CO2 emissions US produce is threat to the rest of the world. Is EU justified (capable is a different topic) to prevent US from emitting CO2?

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because we already have it. From a purely practical standpoint, that cat is out of the bag - the technology cannot be uninvented. If we were starting from a point where nobody had them, then you'd have a point about a double standard.

So if I have a car I am justified to prevent anyone who doesn't have a car from getting one? Doesn't sound right to me.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
But you'll note that every international agreement from the Cold War onwards with regard to nuclear weapons has been about reduction, not proliferation. It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations? Can't say I'm up to date on what agreements Iran and North Korea have signed but I'm sure they claim to be in agreement with them. And if they are not they can just withdraw. Or do all the countries who signed the Kyoto agreement have the right to dictate Canada's environmental policy?

US never ratified Kyoto but if ROW have the right to dictate Iran nuclear policy doesn't ROW also have the right to dictate US environmental policy? It certainly is a threat to the rest of the world.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13):
The sanctions in Iran were emposeed by the UN, which includes many other countries other than the US.

Some of them are. Others are US only.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

The arms race was started a long time ago, by Israel. Did the US impose sanctions ? I didn't think so.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:15 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
All of this is true. Sanctions are very messy. But what is that alternative?

The alternative is to stop kissing Israel's ass and urging them to resolve the Palestine conflict. Which is ultimately the core of the problem.

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
You didn't see that with Iraq, and you don't see it in North Korea. So that is progress. Hopefully the Ahmedinejad regime will be forced out of power, and then you may start to see real progress, and an accompanying lifting of sanctions.

If you believe that all Iranians are closet-Americans who are currently repressed by an evil tyrant, yes. Many Iranians like their president. Incidentally, he's the moderate among Iranian politicians.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13):
1. Iran has continously threatened to wipe israel off the map
2. Iran funds hezbollah and Hamas.
3. Iran refuses to sign onto a nuclear treaty and allow inspecitions by UN Nuclear regulatory agencies.
4. With numbers 3 and 1 , Iran has highly lent itself to the path of war , and specifically war with weapons of mass destruction.

1. Not really.
2. The USA funds Somalian terorrists.
3. They let commisioners into the country. If they show them everything is another question.
4. Iran doesn't want a war. If it wants nuclear weapons, which at this point is not even clear (it's said that they'd need at least 20 years to develop them), they want them to become less vulnerable in case Israel starts something. It is anything but coincidental that the two most vociferous forces on the anti Iran front are the USA and Germany.

Iran's nuclear weapon program, which again, doesn't even exist at this point, is a mean of defense. Not of attack.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:36 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
The arms race was started a long time ago, by Israel. Did the US impose sanctions ? I didn't think so.

What arms race? The only country in the ME, other than Israel, that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.

Since their nukes are pointed at each other, the MAD principle provides the necessary checks and balances. As long as their stuff stays in house, and isn't pointed anywhere else, then there is no cause for sanctions.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations?

It's not rocket science. Note my reply above.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why is our fear more valid than their fear?

Because it's the fear of many nations against the fear of one.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Is EU justified (capable is a different topic) to prevent US from emitting CO2?

Absolutely. Whether they really want to fight that battle (metaphorically, obviously) is another matter entirely.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Again, so why does our fear justify restrictions on a sovereign nation?

Because here's what will happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon: Saudi Arabia will get one (and that's not conjecture, that's their stated position, and they will have the capability to follow through on it). And then Egypt will probably get one. And then Jordan might follow. And suddenly you'll have six countries with nuclear weapons in a region where instability and conflict are routine, and where fundamentalist religion can justify, or even glorify, suicide as a means of achieving one's ends - that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

The world will feel the effects of that unpleasantness. Any conflict that goes nuclear is likely to escalate to the point where things get out of control and we have World War III. If you have a chance to break that chain, it would be entirely justified.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
So if I have a car I am justified to prevent anyone who doesn't have a car from getting one? Doesn't sound right to me.

If that person were likely to be a reckless driver and attract a whole bunch more reckless drivers, I would consider that justification.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
US never ratified Kyoto but if ROW have the right to dictate Iran nuclear policy doesn't ROW also have the right to dictate US environmental policy?

They could put sanctions on the US if they wanted to. Of course, without trade with the US, a lot of countries would be far worse off, so there's disincentive for them to do that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations? Can't say I'm up to date on what agreements Iran and North Korea have signed but I'm sure they claim to be in agreement with them.

Iran removed its own right to develop nuclear weapons when it signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which really renders the whole discussion of what sovereign nations can arm themselves with moot, but responded to that because it would still be true if Iran wasn't a part of the NPT). There is ample evidence to suggest that they are not in compliance with it, no matter what they claim. Thus, the sanctions.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:01 pm

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
What arms race? The only country in the ME, other than Israel, that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan.

Well, only one country with foes around is needed to start an arms race, and that's exactly what Israel did a long time ago. Iran is only following.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
Since their nukes are pointed at each other, the MAD principle provides the necessary checks and balances. As long as their stuff stays in house, and isn't pointed anywhere else, then there is no cause for sanctions.

Israel argues that Iran wants to point nukes at them. They're already pointing nukes at Iran. So, where is the problem, exactly ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19821
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:10 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Except they aren't. If anything, they can piss the public off enough that they get angry at the countries placing the sanctions. Do you understand what would happen to Iran if they suddenly got iPhones and such? They might actually revolt against their government if given the tools of social networking and international communication.

If the sanctions were working, and they've been in place for a couple of decades now, they would have worked.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13469
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:12 pm

There are only two issues with sanctions. They harm the general population of the sanctioned country and they don't work. What has 50 years of sanctions against Cuba achieved?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:36 pm

Quoting something (Reply 22):
Iran's nuclear weapon program, which again, doesn't even exist at this point, is a mean of defense. Not of attack.

Doesn't exist, based on what, exactly?

In any case, please explain to me if there are any positive sides to this word: destabilization.

No? Because that's what you have in the region once Iran goes nuclear.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:48 pm

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
It's not rocket science. Note my reply above.

No it is not rocket science. It is respect for the sovereignty of other territories. MAD does not address that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Because it's the fear of many nations against the fear of one.

Sounds like gang rape to me.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Absolutely. Whether they really want to fight that battle (metaphorically, obviously) is another matter entirely.

Glad to know where you stand but I think you are hard pressed to find many people who agree.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Because here's what will happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon: Saudi Arabia will get one (and that's not conjecture, that's their stated position, and they will have the capability to follow through on it). And then Egypt will probably get one. And then Jordan might follow. And suddenly you'll have six countries with nuclear weapons in a region where instability and conflict are routine, and where fundamentalist religion can justify, or even glorify, suicide as a means of achieving one's ends - that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

I do find this a likely scenario. Still don't see how it gives us the right to supersede what we claim to be fundamental principle of sovereignty.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
The world will feel the effects of that unpleasantness. Any conflict that goes nuclear is likely to escalate to the point where things get out of control and we have World War III. If you have a chance to break that chain, it would be entirely justified.

Where does the justification revert to the principles we claim to stand for?

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
If that person were likely to be a reckless driver and attract a whole bunch more reckless drivers, I would consider that justification.

But it is just my claim they will be a reckless driver. They claim they will not even drive the car on public roads. Why do I have the right to prevent them from get a car then? I fail to see how this is justifiable.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
They could put sanctions on the US if they wanted to. Of course, without trade with the US, a lot of countries would be far worse off, so there's disincentive for them to do that.

Sanctions are incentives. The sovereign nations remain sovereign.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Iran removed its own right to develop nuclear weapons when it signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which really renders the whole discussion of what sovereign nations can arm themselves with moot, but responded to that because it would still be true if Iran wasn't a part of the NPT).

Pretty much as I thought it stands. Of course Iran state they are in compliance since their nuclear program is to generate power.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
There is ample evidence to suggest that they are not in compliance with it, no matter what they claim. Thus, the sanctions.

When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:10 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

The Iranian government could agree to demands for inspections to ensure they don't have a nuclear weapons program and most of the sanctions would go away. Who is really committing the injustice there? If al-Qaeda really cares so much about the Iranian people, why don't we hear them leveling some blame at the Iranian government as well?

I've heard similar arguments but the reality is some governments and al-Qaeda don't care if innocent people die, they have a larger goal to defeat the infadels and remove them from their land and all that jazz. I'm not saying that Iran is a bad regime, I'm just wondering if another terrorist attack against America or a war with Iran is worth all this

It's quite obvious the Iranian people hate their government... we saw that from the revolts
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:36 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
In any case, please explain to me if there are any positive sides to this word: destabilization.

No? Because that's what you have in the region once Iran goes nuclear.

The region is everything but stable already.

Like it or not, it's Israel that is currently threatening to attack another country, not the other way around.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:39 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.

Except that it is more than fear this time. The world economy depends on relative stability in the ME region for the foreseeable future. So long as that is the case, and there is no nuclear threat to the Strait of Hormuz, there is a rational basis for preventing Iran from screwing with the entire system. Nevermind the fact that their Revolutionary Guard are linked to all manner of organizations that serve nefarious purposes - are these the folks you want safeguarding fissile materials??

Our nuclear force derives from a different era, and a different kind of fear. I don't think we have forgotten the cost of that responsibility, and that is why the nuclear nations take this kind of episode very seriously. This technology is not for people to be messing around with - that much has already been learned.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:31 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Except that it is more than fear this time. The world economy depends on relative stability in the ME region for the foreseeable future. So long as that is the case, and there is no nuclear threat to the Strait of Hormuz, there is a rational basis for preventing Iran from screwing with the entire system. Nevermind the fact that their Revolutionary Guard are linked to all manner of organizations that serve nefarious purposes - are these the folks you want safeguarding fissile materials??

Don't know how it more than fear but the rest is certainly possible. But why do we have the right to cause pain and havoc to one nation because we fear they may cause it to us? Really sounds like the Animal Farm,

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Our nuclear force derives from a different era, and a different kind of fear. I don't think we have forgotten the cost of that responsibility, and that is why the nuclear nations take this kind of episode very seriously. This technology is not for people to be messing around with - that much has already been learned.

I agree this is serious stuff. As are many other issues. Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:14 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
I agree this is serious stuff. As are many other issues. Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?

Because, there are only good or bad people and there is only one right way. Naturally, the US way is the right way (what are the odds, right?) and that's why the USA is only spreading the goodness in all selflessness around the world. And this is exactly the situation in Syria. Who cares about the actual conflict and the different interests? Just bomb the place down.
Who cares about Iranians, or the pesky reasons behind this conflict (you neo-libs with your fancy ''facts'') or international law when a person the media tells me is unlikeable is given the business?

Again. It's not the USA telling other nations what to do because it serves their own interest, they're just doing the region a selfless favor. There's a clear distinction though: When other countries are trying to tell the USA what to do, like signing the Kyoto protocol for example (which is really an egregious demand with a much more severe impact on US citizens than depriving Iranians of medication). Such behavior is beyond the pale and the US, as a sovereign nation, will not bow to international demands based on the above mentioned pesky facts. Because this has nothing to do with goodness being spread on them. They don't want it, regardless of what others think, and as a sovereign nation they are free to reject foreign demands.

On that note. US emissions are a real thing. Today. The Iranian nuclear bomb isn't.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:36 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.

Neither signed the NPT. So that's a whole different ballgame right there. And their motivations for getting nuclear weapons were very different from Iran's.

Quoting something (Reply 22):
The alternative is to stop kissing Israel's ass and urging them to resolve the Palestine conflict. Which is ultimately the core of the problem.

Not at all. The Israel/Palestine conflict could end peacefully tomorrow and Iran would still want nuclear weapons. How would the presence of a Palestinian state remove any perceived threat to Iran from Israel?

Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

Quoting something (Reply 22):
If you believe that all Iranians are closet-Americans who are currently repressed by an evil tyrant, yes. Many Iranians like their president.

And many don't. I don't expect Iran to become an American puppet. They can hate America for all I care. As long as they have a government that recognizes that having nuclear weapons is not in their interest, that's fine.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Well, only one country with foes around is needed to start an arms race, and that's exactly what Israel did a long time ago.

Israel has unofficially had nuclear weapons for a while and nobody in the Middle East tried to develop them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Sounds like gang rape to me.

Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
I do find this a likely scenario. Still don't see how it gives us the right to supersede what we claim to be fundamental principle of sovereignty.

So, in other words, just let one nation take the entire world to hell in a handbasket? I don't accept that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Where does the justification revert to the principles we claim to stand for?

What, freedom and prosperity? Or let's just focus on prosperity. As Aaron said, the economic system of the world is dependent on at least some stability in the Middle East. And people think it's a good idea to have a nuclear arms race there?

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Of course Iran state they are in compliance since their nuclear program is to generate power.

Their program is not to generate power. Or rather, not only to generate power. In other words, they're lying.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it.

There's no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their treaty obligations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
I've heard similar arguments but the reality is some governments and al-Qaeda don't care if innocent people die, they have a larger goal to defeat the infadels and remove them from their land and all that jazz.

So why do we care when they cite the deaths of innocent people as justification for their actions?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
I'm just wondering if another terrorist attack against America or a war with Iran is worth all this

Since a terrorist attack is not an automatic result of pressure on Iran, and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire, I think it's quite worth it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?

Yes. Quite a bit. Terrorism has nothing to do with sovereignty.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13501
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:50 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 6):
Paris Hilton getting her tits out


- perk -

Where?  












(just kidding, please continue squabbling)
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:29 am

Quoting something (Reply 34):
Again. It's not the USA telling other nations what to do because it serves their own interest, they're just doing the region a selfless favor.

Mind you, this isn't just the US. It's most of the world.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:37 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
So why do we care when they cite the deaths of innocent people as justification for their actions?

Because we're unjustly killing whereas when they have collateral damage, they die for Allah's cause. IDK they're terrorists

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire

Are they? There are some pretty shady countries with nuclear weapons that haven't done anything. Do you honestly think they'd risk becoming a smoldering hole and use a nuke? That includes supplying a nuke to someone else, it wouldn't be hard to guess where it came from and the reactions would be mostly the same
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
PHX787
Posts: 7881
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:01 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Neither signed the NPT. So that's a whole different ballgame right there. And their motivations for getting nuclear weapons were very different from Iran's.

But at the same time Iran has been raising up the rhetoric, which is why Israel is threatening an attack. Anti-Israel rhetoric + nuclear enrichment = ?????

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Since a terrorist attack is not an automatic result of pressure on Iran, and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire, I think it's quite worth it.

The one thing I see about this is- if Israel attacks iran, could we have another 1973 fiasco happen?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Because we're unjustly killing whereas when they have collateral damage, they die for Allah's cause. IDK they're terrorists

That's the very idea of terrorism right there- to force people through killing to align with their beliefs- or to be killed for the fact of being "undermensch" to those terrorists

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.

That's not a double-standard. We had nukes originally because we needed them to stop Japan from continuing the 2nd world war. Ok I know there's more to that, but when Russia began stockpiling and our rhetoric with russia began to raise, that's what created the arms race.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:24 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
IDK they're terrorists

Which I'd regard as a pretty good general-purpose reason not to take whatever they espouse too seriously.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Do you honestly think they'd risk becoming a smoldering hole and use a nuke?

If it's just them and Israel, probably not. But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be. There'd be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Pakistan is already a nuclear power. You get that many countries vying for supreme influence in a region ripe for conflict, and then throw nuclear arms into the picture? That's ugly.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:39 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be.

Source? Why would Iran getting a nuke mean everyone else would want one? Israel has had them for a while and they all hate Israel. Why is Iran magical?
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:49 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Why would Iran getting a nuke mean everyone else would want one? Israel has had them for a while and they all hate Israel. Why is Iran magical?


Because nuclear weapons are about influence. Israel is never going to have dominant influence in the Middle East simply because they are not Muslim - they'll never get others in the region to be their surrogates. That's not the case with Iran. Saudi Arabia, who is currently the dominant power, will get them (they've said they would). There is no reason that Egypt, who could also be the dominant power in the region, wouldn't as well.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:09 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
There is no reason that Egypt, who could also be the dominant power in the region, wouldn't as well.

I don't follow this line of thinking. But it's bedtime so maybe I'll research this tomorrow.

BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:23 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not

But they also hate the West. And if Iran does succede in thumbing its nose at the West, that could rally other countries to their cause. Or perhaps not. But that's an example of how unstable the region is, and the fact remains that putting nuclear weapons in an unstable region is a very bad idea.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:20 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

I think you're missing the main reason a country want nuclear weapons. To create balance with the nuclear powers who insist on telling them what they can and can't do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

Several people (countries) preventing on one person (country) to do things others can do is.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
So, in other words, just let one nation take the entire world to hell in a handbasket? I don't accept that.

But you are. It is just that you like the group who is doing it in this case.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
What, freedom and prosperity? Or let's just focus on prosperity. As Aaron said, the economic system of the world is dependent on at least some stability in the Middle East. And people think it's a good idea to have a nuclear arms race there?

Freedom and prosperity, absolutely. By denying those rights to some we are just the bigger bully. Could even be labeled terrorist.

So are we setting our principles aside only for nuclear arms or what else? What about biological weapons? What about access to raw materials?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Their program is not to generate power. Or rather, not only to generate power. In other words, they're lying.

Only they know for certain. But the thing is, they can withdraw from any agreement whenever they want so what does it matter?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
There's no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their treaty obligations.

Agree, there is no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their obligations. The double standard in preventing someone from doing what you do yourself and allow others to do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Yes. Quite a bit. Terrorism has nothing to do with sovereignty.

On the contrary. What one side call terrorists are typically called freedom fighters by the other side.

But back to the issue. What right do we have to mandate what others do on their sovereign territory? Depending on how it is done we certainly have labeled it terrorism.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 39):
But at the same time Iran has been raising up the rhetoric, which is why Israel is threatening an attack. Anti-Israel rhetoric + nuclear enrichment = ?????

Too many people threatening sanctions and talking about attacking/invading = get nuclear weapons to make them stay away.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 39):
That's not a double-standard. We had nukes originally because we needed them to stop Japan from continuing the 2nd world war. Ok I know there's more to that, but when Russia began stockpiling and our rhetoric with russia began to raise, that's what created the arms race.

Of course it is double standard when you say - I can have it but you can't.
No way around it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
But they also hate the West.

They hate us - We hate them
They can cause havoc to us - We can cause havoc to them
We will not allow them to dictate what we do - They should do what we tell them to do

Do you see the imbalance?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:40 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

I think you're missing the main reason a country want nuclear weapons. To create balance with the nuclear powers who insist on telling them what they can and can't do.

If the Palestinian conflict would be resolved, the Arab/Persion world would sign a peace treaty. The leaders of all countries in the region have stated this repeatedly.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not

Muslim Muslim. Sunnites and Shiites are practically two separate religions just that one believes in the ''Part 2'' of the book series.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
But they also hate the West.

Yes, ''the West''. Iran and Brazil are actually trading partners. And they don't speak of Argentina very often either. Both those countries are inarguably western countries, with western culture.

Iran ''hates'' the West not because of who they are, but because of how they are treated by them. Listen to all the hostile language against the ''Eurocrats'', or the UN even, whenever they're asking the USA to compromice on the most banal issues. Now how do you expect Iranians to feel about the USA, considering what ''compromices'' they are asking of them?

Or another example: Look at what Fox News is doing to people in the midwest. They have managed to get those people to reject reality. After all, they have managed to get you to hate Iran. And this worked in a free country, with free media, free press, uncensored internet accessibility, very limited travel restrictions, high standard of living (computers, phones etc. are not limited to the rich elite). Imagine what censored, state media does to the world view of the average Iranian.

People don't sit around bored and think: ''What could we do today? Wait.. I got it. Let's all hate America!''. You usually need to give people a reason to hate you. Which is why they ''hate'' America, but not Argentina.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:51 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
If it's just them and Israel, probably not. But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be. There'd be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Pakistan is already a nuclear power. You get that many countries vying for supreme influence in a region ripe for conflict, and then throw nuclear arms into the picture? That's ugly.

Having nuclear weapons might give you influence, but using them will not. Besides, having influence over a nuked territory doesn't seem that appealing. And many proxy wars have been fought between nuclear countries without any nuke being used. Even direct skirmishes/battles in the case of Pakistan/India.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:24 pm

Quoting something (Reply 46):
If the Palestinian conflict would be resolved, the Arab/Persion world would sign a peace treaty. The leaders of all countries in the region have stated this repeatedly.

Peace in the Middle East would spell disaster for the American military-industrial complex, with impacts to a whole bunch of Congressional districts. Likewise it would threaten to significantly delay Jesus' return amid the Apocalypse.

And you wonder why our policy seems completely incoherent?
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3040
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:27 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Sanctions are working only if this pressure actually makes government to change their policy, and so far it hasn't. As long as leadership in Iran is backed up by Iranian army these sanctions are totally useless and only cause harm to civilian population.

Just look at Cuba, have these sanctions really worked? No. US government is extremely stupid if it truly believes that this will work either, probably just makes some people more loyal towards Iranian government.
"Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable." - Voltaire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cledaybuck, ContentCreator, cpd, LittleFokker, PacificBeach88, vikkyvik and 12 guests