4 ms·

Why not put any accountability on Cuba/Venezuela/Russia/Iran for present relations ... because after all it takes 2 to tango. For example, Iran has made being a

Why not put any accountability on Cuba/Venezuela/Russia/Iran for present relations ... because after all it takes 2 to tango. For example, Iran has made being a belligerent towards USA a core part of their internal and external policy for decades - what if .. you know .. they stop? Same for Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.

jmyeet 4y ago
What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I would urge you to look at the situation without that assumption, whether you agree with it or not. Think about it: you can take the sanctions and argue the US is starving you. If someone was starving you whether or not that can be justified why wouldn't you be hostile? The US is, as far as you're concerned, the abuser in this relationship. I like to bring up the example of then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright [1]: > On May 12, 1996, then-ambassador Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it. Now the "half a million" figure is probably exaggerated but even if it's "only" 50,000 the problem holds. Sanctions kill people, children included. Why would or should we expect to those suffering under sanctions we created to not be hostile? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I disagree because I didn't make any value statement on the US. I did argue that the countries you listed have been historically antagonistic towards the US, so that fact that this is reciprocated is quite understandable.
janef0421 4y ago
If a government has a history of interfering in your internal affairs to cynically advance their interests, maintains harmful policies against you for not aligning with their interests, and has an aggressive diplomatic posture, then it is logical to adopt a hostile stance towards that country until that pattern of behaviour changes.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >If a government has a history of interfering in your internal affairs to cynically advance their interests, maintains harmful policies against you for not aligning with their interests, and has an aggressive diplomatic posture, then it is logical to adopt a hostile stance towards that country until that pattern of behaviour changes. The countries in questions have a been quite antagonistic towards the US and this antagonism has been reciprocated. That is perfectly understandable. Your argument is that this antagonism is justified because "the US started it" or maybe "the US deserves it" ... I'm not so sure about that.

jmyeet 4y ago

What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I would urge you to look at the situation without that assumption, whether you agree with it or not. Think about it: you can take the sanctions and argue the US is starving you. If someone was starving you whether or not that can be justified why wouldn't you be hostile? The US is, as far as you're concerned, the abuser in this relationship. I like to bring up the example of then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright [1]: > On May 12, 1996, then-ambassador Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it. Now the "half a million" figure is probably exaggerated but even if it's "only" 50,000 the problem holds. Sanctions kill people, children included. Why would or should we expect to those suffering under sanctions we created to not be hostile? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

macspoofing 4y ago
>What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I disagree because I didn't make any value statement on the US. I did argue that the countries you listed have been historically antagonistic towards the US, so that fact that this is reciprocated is quite understandable.

janef0421 4y ago

If a government has a history of interfering in your internal affairs to cynically advance their interests, maintains harmful policies against you for not aligning with their interests, and has an aggressive diplomatic posture, then it is logical to adopt a hostile stance towards that country until that pattern of behaviour changes.

macspoofing 4y ago
>If a government has a history of interfering in your internal affairs to cynically advance their interests, maintains harmful policies against you for not aligning with their interests, and has an aggressive diplomatic posture, then it is logical to adopt a hostile stance towards that country until that pattern of behaviour changes. The countries in questions have a been quite antagonistic towards the US and this antagonism has been reciprocated. That is perfectly understandable. Your argument is that this antagonism is justified because "the US started it" or maybe "the US deserves it" ... I'm not so sure about that.