7 ms·

I hate to say this, but it sounds to me like the sanctions are in a way doing pretty much what they were intended to do: make it harder for Iran to have good en

by yoavm 5y ago

I hate to say this, but it sounds to me like the sanctions are in a way doing pretty much what they were intended to do: make it harder for Iran to have good engineers and technology scene, that could later be used for other things. It sucks for the average Iranian for sure, but that's true for all sanctions. What's the alternative? How do you put sanctions without hurting the people?

Ansil849 5y ago
> How do you put sanctions without hurting the people? You don't.
- zja 5y ago
  Sanctions can be done in a way that targets specific individuals instead of entire populations. See US sanctions against Russia a few years ago.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    But what is the efficacy of elite sanctions? From the outside it seems to do nothing.
  - Joker_vD 5y ago
    You mean those sanctions that outlawed anyone to have any business with anyone (be they Ukrainian or Russian citizens) residing in Crimea?
  - pphysch 5y ago
    "Targeted sanctions" as a geopolitical tool are a complete myth. They fall apart at the slightest scrutiny: from outside a sovereign nation, how do you prevent a target from colluding with a non-target to get around the targeted sanction? You can't reasonably ensure that, so by induction the only solution is to sanction (read: blockade) the entire population and its real economy. Which is a massive human rights abuse.
fuzzer37 5y ago
Don't put pointless sanctions on them?
- anonymousab 5y ago
  It's not pointless. The people are the power of any government and the US is saying that they don't want to interact with this government or people until they change certain things. It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > It is nonviolent pressure Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
    - grayhatter 5y ago
      > Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. -- Wikipedia All my sources seem to disagree with you.
      - creddit 5y ago
        It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
        grayhatter 5y ago
        rhetorically I might agree but only in the context of obviously misusing the language to make a point. ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close. silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent
guerrilla 5y ago
> How do you put sanctions without hurting the people? It's not possible. If a country enacting sanctions has a large enough economy (and thus significant global influence)*, the sanctions are essentially a siege of an entire country. Those who advocate or consent to them in policy should be aware that they are waging a war of attrition and the goal (and only possible effect) is for the castle to run out of food and water or, before that happens, for the peasants to revolt and fight their war against the king for them. * This is because that country can force all other countries it trades with to get in line with those sanctions by refusing to trade with them if they don't. If those countries are dependent enough, then they have essentially no choice. Even if they are not, they may end up facing their own internal revolts by giving up that trade.
Ericson2314 5y ago
That may be, but US sanctions and blockades are famously uselesss --- hell they probably helped the survival of the Cuban government, for example, since globalized trade tends to dominate small open economies which Cuba was until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iran has an actual civil society unlike the gulf oil slave states we've sucked up to for ages, so they way we've picked sides with that regional rivalry in particular is also a pointless mockery of good planning. This seems to be a like pointless tradgedy that will in no way benefit the citizens of the United States.
kube-system 5y ago
You can try sanctioning leadership, but that only works if you're able to sanction something they care about.
pyrale 5y ago
I mean, of course, it is wrong to conquer land and to force its population to work for you, but if you don't, how do you get gold back to Spain?
- pvaldes 5y ago
  The act to conquer land is not wrong or right by itself. Depends on the context.
  - schwartzworld 5y ago
    Hot take. In what context is "conquering" occupied land "right"? Maybe you mean context of being the conquerers vs the context of being conquered?
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      There is always somebody that wins and somebody that loses, what really counts is if people lives better under the new ruler or not. Do you think that to occupate the nazi germany was wrong? Or that Cuba was a fine democratic place when ruled by the dictator Batista? Are you aware that the British Company of East India assasinated anybody that would stand in the middle of their way or that US United Fruit Company assasinated more than 1800 people and promoted coups in several countries? If everybody is evil there is not any difference when people in power change. Americans thinking that Cuba is a terrible place now and should be punished by that (and it IS a terrible place in lots of ways, for sure), forget that living under the iron fist of the big fruit companies was a slave distopic nigthmare. But this never was a problem for them, for some reason. Is ridiculous if we think about it. Americans are taxed since that "to keep alive, generation after generation, the flaming revenge of a bunch of great-grandpa mobsters that everybody today would find despicable". A terrible business for US that were paying good money to people for things like to infiltrate and put concrete in the milk truck of Cuban scholars. Benefit to the operation for American people: Zero; here is your bill. How many years the US people will need to pay still for this dusty "revenge business" nonsense?
      - 5y ago
sangnoir 5y ago
> make it harder for Iran to have good engineers and technology scene, that could later be used for other things. Perhaps Iranians will be forced to use the Chinese versions of Github, Fedora and kernel.org. Is that the future anyone wants? I don't think the Iranian engineers will quit and become plumbers or farmers.

by yoavm 5y ago

Ansil849 5y ago

> How do you put sanctions without hurting the people? You don't.

zja 5y ago
Sanctions can be done in a way that targets specific individuals instead of entire populations. See US sanctions against Russia a few years ago.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  But what is the efficacy of elite sanctions? From the outside it seems to do nothing.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  You mean those sanctions that outlawed anyone to have any business with anyone (be they Ukrainian or Russian citizens) residing in Crimea?
- pphysch 5y ago
  "Targeted sanctions" as a geopolitical tool are a complete myth. They fall apart at the slightest scrutiny: from outside a sovereign nation, how do you prevent a target from colluding with a non-target to get around the targeted sanction? You can't reasonably ensure that, so by induction the only solution is to sanction (read: blockade) the entire population and its real economy. Which is a massive human rights abuse.

fuzzer37 5y ago

Don't put pointless sanctions on them?

anonymousab 5y ago
It's not pointless. The people are the power of any government and the US is saying that they don't want to interact with this government or people until they change certain things. It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > It is nonviolent pressure Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    > Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. -- Wikipedia All my sources seem to disagree with you.
    - creddit 5y ago
      It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
      - grayhatter 5y ago
        rhetorically I might agree but only in the context of obviously misusing the language to make a point. ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close. silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent

guerrilla 5y ago

> How do you put sanctions without hurting the people? It's not possible. If a country enacting sanctions has a large enough economy (and thus significant global influence)*, the sanctions are essentially a siege of an entire country. Those who advocate or consent to them in policy should be aware that they are waging a war of attrition and the goal (and only possible effect) is for the castle to run out of food and water or, before that happens, for the peasants to revolt and fight their war against the king for them. * This is because that country can force all other countries it trades with to get in line with those sanctions by refusing to trade with them if they don't. If those countries are dependent enough, then they have essentially no choice. Even if they are not, they may end up facing their own internal revolts by giving up that trade.

Ericson2314 5y ago

That may be, but US sanctions and blockades are famously uselesss --- hell they probably helped the survival of the Cuban government, for example, since globalized trade tends to dominate small open economies which Cuba was until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iran has an actual civil society unlike the gulf oil slave states we've sucked up to for ages, so they way we've picked sides with that regional rivalry in particular is also a pointless mockery of good planning. This seems to be a like pointless tradgedy that will in no way benefit the citizens of the United States.

kube-system 5y ago

You can try sanctioning leadership, but that only works if you're able to sanction something they care about.

pyrale 5y ago

I mean, of course, it is wrong to conquer land and to force its population to work for you, but if you don't, how do you get gold back to Spain?

pvaldes 5y ago
The act to conquer land is not wrong or right by itself. Depends on the context.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  Hot take. In what context is "conquering" occupied land "right"? Maybe you mean context of being the conquerers vs the context of being conquered?
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    There is always somebody that wins and somebody that loses, what really counts is if people lives better under the new ruler or not. Do you think that to occupate the nazi germany was wrong? Or that Cuba was a fine democratic place when ruled by the dictator Batista? Are you aware that the British Company of East India assasinated anybody that would stand in the middle of their way or that US United Fruit Company assasinated more than 1800 people and promoted coups in several countries? If everybody is evil there is not any difference when people in power change. Americans thinking that Cuba is a terrible place now and should be punished by that (and it IS a terrible place in lots of ways, for sure), forget that living under the iron fist of the big fruit companies was a slave distopic nigthmare. But this never was a problem for them, for some reason. Is ridiculous if we think about it. Americans are taxed since that "to keep alive, generation after generation, the flaming revenge of a bunch of great-grandpa mobsters that everybody today would find despicable". A terrible business for US that were paying good money to people for things like to infiltrate and put concrete in the milk truck of Cuban scholars. Benefit to the operation for American people: Zero; here is your bill. How many years the US people will need to pay still for this dusty "revenge business" nonsense?
    - 5y ago

sangnoir 5y ago

> make it harder for Iran to have good engineers and technology scene, that could later be used for other things. Perhaps Iranians will be forced to use the Chinese versions of Github, Fedora and kernel.org. Is that the future anyone wants? I don't think the Iranian engineers will quit and become plumbers or farmers.