5 ms·

I'm in complete agreement that most of our "allies" in the region are fairweather friends and as morally bankrupt as anyone else. However, I'm also in favor of

I'm in complete agreement that most of our "allies" in the region are fairweather friends and as morally bankrupt as anyone else. However, I'm also in favor of blanket sanctions against any nation whose parliament takes up a literal "Marg bar Āmrikā" collective chant.

ahelwer 6y ago
Even a cursory Wikipedia-level glance at the US's actions in Iran over the past century should bring understanding of why people might feel that way toward us. The solution is not to punish such sentiments but address our historical misbehavior and demonstrate it won't continue in the future. We are doing neither.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 6y ago
So because they chanted "Death to America," you are in favor of imposing sanctions that will cause the death of Iranians?
- Causality1 6y ago
  If someone communicates that they want to kill you, I think refusing to do business with them is an incredibly subdued response.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Even though refusing to do business with them will cause some of their family to die of starvation or lack of medicine?
    - Causality1 6y ago
      Yes. It's the same reason I don't shop at Hobby Lobby despite a boycott potentially causing innocent workers to lose their livelihood.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        They can find new jobs, the people you've killed for disagreeing with your foreign policy are dead forever.
        Causality1 6y ago
        I've found myself in an awkward position defending sanctions I don't really agree with anyway. I'm not sure these differences of opinion are reconcilable. Some people think the appropriate response to death threats is to ignore them, and others like me think the appropriate response is a cruise missile.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You realize that "Death to America" is not remotely a death threat? At worst it wants to see the fall of America and most Iranians say they just want the end of America's imperialist policies. And you're against sanctions because they don't kill enough people.
gdy 6y ago
That's ironic, that you have a problem with casuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...
- Causality1 6y ago
  Yep, the US did terrible things to Iran 67 years ago. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? Would it have been appropriate for the US congress to chant "death to Japan" in 2008? The Islamic Revolution was 41 years ago. Should the South Korean parliament be chanting "death to China"?
  - gdy 6y ago
    As if the US has stopped harming Iran 67 years ago. And at the same time the US still imposes embargo on Cuba, 60 years after the nationalization of the property of American companies [0]. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? "In October 1960 a key incident occurred: Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island, leaving Cuba reliant on Soviet crude oil, which the American companies in Cuba refused to refine. This led the Cuban government to nationalize all three American-owned oil refineries in Cuba in response. The refinery owners were not compensated for the nationalization of their property. The refineries became part of the state-run company, Unión Cuba-Petróleo.[19][20] This prompted the Eisenhower administration to launch the first trade embargo—a prohibition against selling all products to Cuba except food and medicine. The Cuban regime responded with nationalization of all American businesses and most American privately-owned properties on the island. No compensation was given for the seizures, and a number of diplomats were expelled from Cuba." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Eisenhower_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

ahelwer 6y ago

Even a cursory Wikipedia-level glance at the US's actions in Iran over the past century should bring understanding of why people might feel that way toward us. The solution is not to punish such sentiments but address our historical misbehavior and demonstrate it won't continue in the future. We are doing neither.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 6y ago

So because they chanted "Death to America," you are in favor of imposing sanctions that will cause the death of Iranians?

Causality1 6y ago
If someone communicates that they want to kill you, I think refusing to do business with them is an incredibly subdued response.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Even though refusing to do business with them will cause some of their family to die of starvation or lack of medicine?
  - Causality1 6y ago
    Yes. It's the same reason I don't shop at Hobby Lobby despite a boycott potentially causing innocent workers to lose their livelihood.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      They can find new jobs, the people you've killed for disagreeing with your foreign policy are dead forever.
      - Causality1 6y ago
        I've found myself in an awkward position defending sanctions I don't really agree with anyway. I'm not sure these differences of opinion are reconcilable. Some people think the appropriate response to death threats is to ignore them, and others like me think the appropriate response is a cruise missile.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You realize that "Death to America" is not remotely a death threat? At worst it wants to see the fall of America and most Iranians say they just want the end of America's imperialist policies. And you're against sanctions because they don't kill enough people.

gdy 6y ago

That's ironic, that you have a problem with casuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

Causality1 6y ago
Yep, the US did terrible things to Iran 67 years ago. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? Would it have been appropriate for the US congress to chant "death to Japan" in 2008? The Islamic Revolution was 41 years ago. Should the South Korean parliament be chanting "death to China"?
- gdy 6y ago
  As if the US has stopped harming Iran 67 years ago. And at the same time the US still imposes embargo on Cuba, 60 years after the nationalization of the property of American companies [0]. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? "In October 1960 a key incident occurred: Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island, leaving Cuba reliant on Soviet crude oil, which the American companies in Cuba refused to refine. This led the Cuban government to nationalize all three American-owned oil refineries in Cuba in response. The refinery owners were not compensated for the nationalization of their property. The refineries became part of the state-run company, Unión Cuba-Petróleo.[19][20] This prompted the Eisenhower administration to launch the first trade embargo—a prohibition against selling all products to Cuba except food and medicine. The Cuban regime responded with nationalization of all American businesses and most American privately-owned properties on the island. No compensation was given for the seizures, and a number of diplomats were expelled from Cuba." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Eisenhower_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...