7 ms·

Why are sanctions on Iran immoral? Sanctions seem like the least harmful way to deal with bad actors at the nation state level like Iran, North Korea, and Russ

by eloff 5y ago

Why are sanctions on Iran immoral? Sanctions seem like the least harmful way to deal with bad actors at the nation state level like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. This is the equivalent of not playing with the kid who can't play fair or follow the rules. Replace playing with trading. You might say Iran is not a bad actor, but that's not a winnable position to take. Would you prefer military intervention over sanctions? What else can you do in these kinds of situations?

sfifs 5y ago
You probably should read up on the history of the Shah of Iran, Western oil companies, the CIA and the Islamic revolution.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  "You should read up on" is not a persuasive logical argument - it's a dismissive throw away line given by someone who doesn't have one.
- eloff 5y ago
  That's not an argument. But I happen to be familiar enough with that history to also say your point isn't even a valid one. That's the two wrongs make a right logical fallacy. That the US did shit to Iran does not excuse the shit Iran is currently up to.
- aesh2Xa1 5y ago
  As long as you also read up on the related history of Russia and Communism, too. This is a good suggestion. The book, "Twilight War," has a lot of material background on the matter.
Udik 5y ago
> This is the equivalent of not playing with the kid who can't play fair or follow the rules. More like the equivalent of the school bully threatening to beat up any kid who plays with the kid he doesn't like.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  "Doesn't like" due to the real and lasting harm they've caused to the entire region
  - Udik 5y ago
    Says the country which organised a coup in Iran to install a dictator, financed another local dictator to attack it, then waged war twice against him leaving a country in ruins, supports and arms a religious absolute monarchy and its wars, supports an apartheid regime, paid jihadists in Syria to keep a civil war running...
- nradov 5y ago
  Sanctions aren't violence, or even the threat of violence. They're an attempt to prevent violence.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Sanctions threaten violence against any one who does business with any one targeted by the sanctions.
    - Eileenalonem 5y ago
      The SRE team members who show a trend of continuous improvement may gain a system-wide view. Gradually, they come to understand that software value delivery chains work. Gathering more practical knowledge makes the SRE team members flexible for the future. Such knowledge also provides them a competitive edge. Click here for more information: https://www.novelvista.com/sre-foundation-training-certification https://www.novelvista.com/sre-foundation-training-certifica...
8note 5y ago
I'd say Iran isn't a bad actor. They're not an American client state, bit they're no worse than America, China, or Saudi Arabia You can argue that they're a threat to american interests and an embarrassment to the American intelligence agencies, but that's not exactly the same as being a bad actor.
- eloff 5y ago
  That's a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. China and Saudi Arabia are pretty dirty, but I don't see the US in that camp lately.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? What about the fact that the US has been sponsoring military and paramilitary organisations in central and Southern America for decades to fight against attempts at unionisation or socialisation efforts to help ensure their control over the rare earth metals and oil there? There are death squads that have mowed down entire villages after being informed of talk about unionisation as well as driving away indigenous tribes who happen to live in areas that are inconvenient to the interest of US multinational companies. Are you also somehow forgetting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was perpetuated for decades after the given reason for invasion were dealt with for the transparent motivation to plunder the resources there? More than 200,000 civilians dead (and that's on the optimistic side of projections) as a direct result of actions from the US army. All of these examples I gave are crimes that the US are currently engaging in and even with that restriction, this is far from a complete list. If I expanded it out to what they have been up to in the last 5 decades, then it would be a lot longer still. If you don't see the US as dirty, then I don't know what standards you are operating under.
    - eloff 5y ago
      > Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity? How am I supposed to take you seriously. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but they're a necessary evil. But Israel? I don't know what standards you're operating under...
PoignardAzur 5y ago
Even if you grant that Iran is a bad actor (which is kind of rich considering how much western countries deal with Saudi Arabia)... It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back". What's the message being sent to Iran? "It doesn't matter if you try to play nice, we're going to destroy your economy unless you submit as a vassal state to the US"? Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing. If your answer is "moral legitimacy doesn't matter, because the US has the power to enforce its decisions", sure, that's true. Enjoy it while it lasts. But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony.
- eloff 5y ago
  > It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back". Yeah it is fucked up. What is the word of the US worth if it's going to flip flop every time the party in power switches. That's going to have ramifications. > Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing. Every country can decide for themselves who are good and bad countries, and they're free to take whatever action they feel is appropriate, including war. That's how nations work. Now some actions have consequences, and some nations have more or less power and influence. The US does have some moral authority in that it sometimes stands up for what's right rather than what's in their best interests. For example, bans on buying conflict minerals. The UN is supposed to function like you're saying, but in reality it's quite dysfunctional. Because of the veto system the default action is no action so it's hard to agree on anything. > But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony. They can and they will, but such is the nature of things. Nations rise and fall.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
Sanctions on Iran are indiscriminate, and mostly harm civilians. It's collective punishment. To put into perspective the damage done to non-combatants: one study found the sanctions the Trump administration placed on Venezuela led to 40,000 deaths: https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-...

by eloff 5y ago

sfifs 5y ago

You probably should read up on the history of the Shah of Iran, Western oil companies, the CIA and the Islamic revolution.

LegitShady 5y ago
"You should read up on" is not a persuasive logical argument - it's a dismissive throw away line given by someone who doesn't have one.
eloff 5y ago
That's not an argument. But I happen to be familiar enough with that history to also say your point isn't even a valid one. That's the two wrongs make a right logical fallacy. That the US did shit to Iran does not excuse the shit Iran is currently up to.
aesh2Xa1 5y ago
As long as you also read up on the related history of Russia and Communism, too. This is a good suggestion. The book, "Twilight War," has a lot of material background on the matter.

Udik 5y ago

> This is the equivalent of not playing with the kid who can't play fair or follow the rules. More like the equivalent of the school bully threatening to beat up any kid who plays with the kid he doesn't like.

seoaeu 5y ago
"Doesn't like" due to the real and lasting harm they've caused to the entire region
- Udik 5y ago
  Says the country which organised a coup in Iran to install a dictator, financed another local dictator to attack it, then waged war twice against him leaving a country in ruins, supports and arms a religious absolute monarchy and its wars, supports an apartheid regime, paid jihadists in Syria to keep a civil war running...
nradov 5y ago
Sanctions aren't violence, or even the threat of violence. They're an attempt to prevent violence.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Sanctions threaten violence against any one who does business with any one targeted by the sanctions.
  - Eileenalonem 5y ago
    The SRE team members who show a trend of continuous improvement may gain a system-wide view. Gradually, they come to understand that software value delivery chains work. Gathering more practical knowledge makes the SRE team members flexible for the future. Such knowledge also provides them a competitive edge. Click here for more information: https://www.novelvista.com/sre-foundation-training-certification https://www.novelvista.com/sre-foundation-training-certifica...

8note 5y ago

I'd say Iran isn't a bad actor. They're not an American client state, bit they're no worse than America, China, or Saudi Arabia You can argue that they're a threat to american interests and an embarrassment to the American intelligence agencies, but that's not exactly the same as being a bad actor.

eloff 5y ago
That's a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. China and Saudi Arabia are pretty dirty, but I don't see the US in that camp lately.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? What about the fact that the US has been sponsoring military and paramilitary organisations in central and Southern America for decades to fight against attempts at unionisation or socialisation efforts to help ensure their control over the rare earth metals and oil there? There are death squads that have mowed down entire villages after being informed of talk about unionisation as well as driving away indigenous tribes who happen to live in areas that are inconvenient to the interest of US multinational companies. Are you also somehow forgetting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was perpetuated for decades after the given reason for invasion were dealt with for the transparent motivation to plunder the resources there? More than 200,000 civilians dead (and that's on the optimistic side of projections) as a direct result of actions from the US army. All of these examples I gave are crimes that the US are currently engaging in and even with that restriction, this is far from a complete list. If I expanded it out to what they have been up to in the last 5 decades, then it would be a lot longer still. If you don't see the US as dirty, then I don't know what standards you are operating under.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity? How am I supposed to take you seriously. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but they're a necessary evil. But Israel? I don't know what standards you're operating under...

PoignardAzur 5y ago

Even if you grant that Iran is a bad actor (which is kind of rich considering how much western countries deal with Saudi Arabia)... It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back". What's the message being sent to Iran? "It doesn't matter if you try to play nice, we're going to destroy your economy unless you submit as a vassal state to the US"? Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing. If your answer is "moral legitimacy doesn't matter, because the US has the power to enforce its decisions", sure, that's true. Enjoy it while it lasts. But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony.

eloff 5y ago
> It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back". Yeah it is fucked up. What is the word of the US worth if it's going to flip flop every time the party in power switches. That's going to have ramifications. > Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing. Every country can decide for themselves who are good and bad countries, and they're free to take whatever action they feel is appropriate, including war. That's how nations work. Now some actions have consequences, and some nations have more or less power and influence. The US does have some moral authority in that it sometimes stands up for what's right rather than what's in their best interests. For example, bans on buying conflict minerals. The UN is supposed to function like you're saying, but in reality it's quite dysfunctional. Because of the veto system the default action is no action so it's hard to agree on anything. > But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony. They can and they will, but such is the nature of things. Nations rise and fall.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

Sanctions on Iran are indiscriminate, and mostly harm civilians. It's collective punishment. To put into perspective the damage done to non-combatants: one study found the sanctions the Trump administration placed on Venezuela led to 40,000 deaths: https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-...