3 ms·
Thank you for the link. I think there's an argument that the syrian rebels were fighting terrorism before they were themselves terrorists, but I agree that the
by colinmhayes 6y ago
Thank you for the link. I think there's an argument that the syrian rebels were fighting terrorism before they were themselves terrorists, but I agree that the US should not be involved in the conflict, and definitely shouldn't fund paramilitary groups with the potential to become terrorists. The U.S. now admitting it was a mistake is important though, because the point of sanctions is to force a government to change its policies.
Geopolitics is messy. In the end I don't see any other strategy besides war that could force Irans hand. If the choices are 1. Show the world that purposefully funding terrorism goes unpunished 2. war, or 3. sanctions I think sanctions are the choice that provides the greatest amount of utility, even if they do harm many.
- opnitro 6y agoPurposely funding terrorism does go unpunished, if you're a US ally. This is my point, that our sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with "morality". They are about power.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- colinmhayes 6y agoYes, that's what being allies is. We do stuff for them they do stuff for us. I don't think that's immoral. Cooperation allows us to accomplish incredible things. Cooperation is built on relationships and trust.
- opnitro 6y agoAs in the US trust's them to fund terrorists in way that advantages us? Then yes, we agree on the state of the world. I just think it's bad.