10 ms·

Can someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...

duaoebg 8y ago
Iran and Isreal don’t get along
- lowry 8y ago
  So why not punish Israel as well?
  - pl1234 8y ago
    because they control America and sacrifice the lives of innocent Americans to achieve their own ends
  - duaoebg 8y ago
    I’m not touching that one
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Israel is much closer to the western point of view on human rights for one thing. It's OK for there to be an objective right and wrong in a conflict.
    - tjr225 8y ago
      Are you claiming that Israel is objectively right in this conflict? If so, can you clarify what you mean by that?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Many, many people would see the forced formation of a new country over the top of an existing country, against their will, as objectively wrong.
      - ars 8y ago
        > over the top of an existing country There was no existing country, it was British territory, and Ottoman, and others. The last time the place was an independent country it was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around 2,200 years ago. And now it's an independent Israel again. Same place, same people, same name, same capital. Different laws and government though.
        tareqak 8y ago
        There are and were different groups of people who existed there and considered that land their homeland.
        user982 8y ago
        "Do you have a flag?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
        tareqak 8y ago
        Exactly: arbitrary rules backed by a significant advantage in the use of force.
        drak0n1c 8y ago
        Everyone who was living in the area that considered the land their homeland were welcome to stay, maintain their private property, and join the fledgling nation. Arabs who stayed and abided by the UN agreement were given first-class citizenship and many went on to become leaders, run successful businesses, and even serve as officers in the IDF. Unfortunately, many rejected the UN agreement and even rejected the terms for a second Palestinian state for the alternative of trusting the call of neighboring nations to flee and fight. Unfortunately those neighboring nations ended up reneging on their word after losing the wars that they started and were not so welcoming towards those who fled, setting the stage for the current quagmire. To be fair, the people alive now were not in a decision-making position back during the formation of Israel, but I wanted to bring up the historical context since we're discussing the formation period. More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel
gpm 8y ago
The world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1]. [0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now". [1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether it improves the world more than it makes it worse is too political for me to be interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.
- koube 8y ago
  There's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal. > By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/around-the-halls-brookings-experts-discuss-the-implications-of-president-trumps-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a... > Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal-sets-needless-international-crisis https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea... > The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability. https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u... In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    The deal with Iran is not relevant.. since Huewai's and Meng's actions are from 5+ years ago, when Iran was subject to UN approved sanctions.
austinheap 8y ago
The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.
- duaoebg 8y ago
  Sanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans. Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    Actually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran. (just not intentionally)
  - austinheap 8y ago
    Foreign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.
- Udik 8y ago
  > to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
wil421 8y ago
The crime is violating sanctions not exactly selling equipment.
make3 8y ago
the goal of sanctions is to place strong pressure on a country that does something we're strongly opposed to (ie try to build nuclear weapons) without having to have a military intervention
hgq 8y ago
Oh, what a silly gentile you are. It's better for all of us, and peace! We all want peace, we don't want killed babies and puppies. Don't question it.
lamarpye 8y ago
Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question.
- stefantalpalaru 8y ago
  > Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&oldid=774864866 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_ap...
briandear 8y ago
If you don’t understand the role of Iran in funding terror groups such as Hezbollah or their long, long history of terror support, notwithstanding their overt threats to “push Israel into the sea,” then explaining how it isn’t just about “selling telecom equipment” isn’t worth the time it would take.

duaoebg 8y ago

Iran and Isreal don’t get along

lowry 8y ago
So why not punish Israel as well?
- pl1234 8y ago
  because they control America and sacrifice the lives of innocent Americans to achieve their own ends
- duaoebg 8y ago
  I’m not touching that one
- ams6110 8y ago
  Israel is much closer to the western point of view on human rights for one thing. It's OK for there to be an objective right and wrong in a conflict.
  - tjr225 8y ago
    Are you claiming that Israel is objectively right in this conflict? If so, can you clarify what you mean by that?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    Many, many people would see the forced formation of a new country over the top of an existing country, against their will, as objectively wrong.
    - ars 8y ago
      > over the top of an existing country There was no existing country, it was British territory, and Ottoman, and others. The last time the place was an independent country it was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around 2,200 years ago. And now it's an independent Israel again. Same place, same people, same name, same capital. Different laws and government though.
      - tareqak 8y ago
        There are and were different groups of people who existed there and considered that land their homeland.
        user982 8y ago
        "Do you have a flag?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
        tareqak 8y ago
        Exactly: arbitrary rules backed by a significant advantage in the use of force.
        drak0n1c 8y ago
        Everyone who was living in the area that considered the land their homeland were welcome to stay, maintain their private property, and join the fledgling nation. Arabs who stayed and abided by the UN agreement were given first-class citizenship and many went on to become leaders, run successful businesses, and even serve as officers in the IDF. Unfortunately, many rejected the UN agreement and even rejected the terms for a second Palestinian state for the alternative of trusting the call of neighboring nations to flee and fight. Unfortunately those neighboring nations ended up reneging on their word after losing the wars that they started and were not so welcoming towards those who fled, setting the stage for the current quagmire. To be fair, the people alive now were not in a decision-making position back during the formation of Israel, but I wanted to bring up the historical context since we're discussing the formation period. More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel

gpm 8y ago

The world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1]. [0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now". [1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether it improves the world more than it makes it worse is too political for me to be interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.

koube 8y ago
There's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal. > By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/around-the-halls-brookings-experts-discuss-the-implications-of-president-trumps-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a... > Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal-sets-needless-international-crisis https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea... > The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability. https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u... In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  The deal with Iran is not relevant.. since Huewai's and Meng's actions are from 5+ years ago, when Iran was subject to UN approved sanctions.

austinheap 8y ago

The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.

duaoebg 8y ago
Sanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans. Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.
- mythrwy 8y ago
  Actually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran. (just not intentionally)
- austinheap 8y ago
  Foreign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.
Udik 8y ago
> to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
rgbrenner 8y ago
The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).

wil421 8y ago

The crime is violating sanctions not exactly selling equipment.

make3 8y ago

the goal of sanctions is to place strong pressure on a country that does something we're strongly opposed to (ie try to build nuclear weapons) without having to have a military intervention

hgq 8y ago

Oh, what a silly gentile you are. It's better for all of us, and peace! We all want peace, we don't want killed babies and puppies. Don't question it.

lamarpye 8y ago

Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question.

stefantalpalaru 8y ago
> Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&oldid=774864866 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_ap...

briandear 8y ago

If you don’t understand the role of Iran in funding terror groups such as Hezbollah or their long, long history of terror support, notwithstanding their overt threats to “push Israel into the sea,” then explaining how it isn’t just about “selling telecom equipment” isn’t worth the time it would take.