7 ms·

> Nobody should be expected to take that risk I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy econo

• nashashmi 1y ago
  > with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. Is this really a US endeavor by policy?
  • nemomarx 1y ago
    It's the occasionally given justification for embargos on Cuba, Sanctions on North Korea, etc. Whether you believe it's the real reason is a different question.
    • nashashmi 1y ago
      Unbelievable that causing unrest in other countries is an official declared policy.
• bradlys 1y ago
  Who is "you"? The US government doesn't reflect the majority of Americans, at all. It reflects capital interests - which the majority of Americans are not. Majority of Americans are laborers.
  • Xelbair 1y ago
    it was voted in by majority, no matter what mental gymnastics you do. People either voted, or decided that their vote was worthless enough.
    • kelnos 1y ago
      Out of available US presidential, House, and Senate candidates, there is essentially no realistic electoral outcome where the people put into power will lift Iranian sanctions. Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate.
      • Xelbair 1y ago
        >Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate. that is only true if you flatten your system to two parties.
        • School-Cotton 1y ago
          > that is only true if you flatten your system to two parties. Again with the "you". "We" did not flatten anything into anything; we were born into an unfair and broken system that we have no power to change.
          • MarceColl 1y ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
            • School-Cotton 1y ago
              Huh? This is a completely different thing.
          • 1y ago
  • MarceColl 1y ago
    Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like a generic "you", not talking about you specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
• Keirmot 1y ago
  Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. From that perspective, sanctions aren’t meant as “torture for fun,” (as you put it) but as a way of creating pressure so governments change their behavior without having to resort to war. They’re basically a tool to raise the cost of bad actions and make it more attractive to adjust course. At the same time, sanctions also work in other ways: they punish governments that break international norms, they send a signal to the world about what’s considered unacceptable, and they reaffirm shared values. That’s why they’re still used despite the harsh effects on ordinary people. They aren’t a perfect solution, but in Western thinking their role is to combine pressure, deterrence and symbolism, rather than just collective punishment for its own sake.
  • tsimionescu 1y ago
    The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like. So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.
    • abc123abc123 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • dontlaugh 1y ago
        "Leftists" are against sanctions. Ask your local socialist, anarchist or communist.
      • torben-friis 1y ago
        >If you don't like it, move to another country, and then it is not your responsibility any longer. I’m not sure you understand how authoritarian regimes work. Or that you care about understanding, for that matter.
• waihtis 1y ago
  One would think the finger pointing should go towards the shitty governments causing trouble and pain for their own citizens, but somehow you've managed to find an angle to blame the West. It is truly an unthankful job being the saviour of the entire world.
  • miningape 1y ago
    [flagged]
• chickenzzzzu 1y ago
  [flagged]
• sofixa 1y ago
  > You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. That's (usually) a secondary goal of sanctions, if even that. The primary is to restrict the regime's ability to fund its growth, stability and military operations. Russia can no longer (that easily) sell its oil and gas? Great, that's less money to invest into rockets and drones and tanks against Ukraine. It's also less money in the pockets of the oligarchs. Realistically, you can't really push the civilians of a country to revolt with sanctions, or bombing. As Carl Spaatz said: > Morale in a totalitarian society is irrelevant so long as the control patterns function effectively.
• Seattle3503 1y ago
  > You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. I think the argument is that you deprive belligerent companies from the resources they need to attack and harm others. The suffering their citizens endure is unfortunate, but why should Americans take the blame when Kim Jong Un is so obviously culpable?
• School-Cotton 1y ago
  > and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea No, I don't do this. I'm not in charge of the government. Who is "we" ?
  • matsemann 1y ago
    Not a dig at you, but it's a bit funny/worrisome to see how "we" are not in charge of what our governments do and "Nobody should be expected to take that risk" here, while comments from for instance sfn42 and mvdtnz says the Iranian people are supporting their government because they live and work in the country and should either take the risk by revolting or be classified as supporters of the government. Such hypocrisy.
    • 2000UltraDeluxe 1y ago
      In the real world, sanctions happen for a variety of reasons. They have wide-reaching consequences, and you can't expect everyone to always fight every single goverment policy they don't personally approve of; an Iranian citizen is no more obliged to revolt against the Iranian government, than a citizen of sanctioning countries are to revolt against their governments for imposing those sanctions.
  • Xelbair 1y ago
    'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did. Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.
    • School-Cotton 1y ago
      > 'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did. So what? Even if 99% of the population agrees with doing something, that has no bearing on whether I agree with it or am responsible for it. And, anyway, no major candidate would have lifted sanctions on those countries, so nobody could have voted against them even if they wanted to. > Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked. Perhaps Europeans, with their higher-quality parliamentary systems, are more likely to uncritically accept the idea that governments actually represent their people, whereas Americans are more likely to realize it's a sham.
• ajuc 1y ago
  You misunderstand the goal of the sanctions. Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies. Over 30 years that turns countries into harmless (to the West) backwater shitholes. The consequences towards the local populations are just a side-effect (sometimes wanted, sometimes not). You cannot expect people outside of your dicatorship to prioritize your well being over their own safety. It's on you to fix your country. If you won't - people will isolate you to keep their countries safe. Can't really blame them.
  • cess11 1y ago
    No, they're there to kill people. It's war by non-military means, and the US is waging such a war on a very large portion of the world. There is a recent study concluding that sanctions kill half a million people per annum: <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...> I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.
    • ajuc 1y ago
      When alcoholic husband beats his wife so they put him in prison and the wife starves - is it the fault of the people who put the husband in prison? Or the fault of the husband for beating his wife and the fault of the wife for staying in that relationship? I get it - it's hard. But you cannot expect the whole world to enable your alcoholic husband/militaristic dictator.
      • cess11 1y ago
        Not sure what your supposed analogy is referring to but I'm all for boycott and sanctions towards the US if that's what you mean.
        • 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
• incone123 1y ago
  Do you think North Korean leaders would be nicer to their people if there were no sanctions?
• kelnos 1y ago
  > I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries... "You all" is a weird way of putting it. I don't support my government levying sanctions on these countries, but I have zero power to change it. It's funny, as the gist author points out that he doesn't support the actions of the Islamic Republic, and has no power to change it because it's minority rule by a theocratic dictatorship. But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation. I think sanctions are largely pointless if their stated goal is to get citizens to rise up and change their governments. Asking people to risk their lives (when you're not risking anything at all) is an awful thing to do, and this sort of thing isn't likely to work. But it's probably not really that; the idea is to choke the economies of these countries so they can't do whatever Bad Thing the sanction-leviers are worried about (like developing nuclear weapons). How effective sanctions are at achieving that goal is an exercise left to the reader. And even if they are effective, there's a lot of collateral damage that hurts people who have no say in the matter.
  • bitkrieg 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • skywhopper 1y ago
      Still a little different yet.
      • ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yeah, one set of regressive nuts has nukes.
      • surgical_fire 1y ago
        Different as they may be, I wouldn't visit either.
  • spwa4 1y ago
• tonyhart7 1y ago
  don't get me wrong, US gov has many flaw and cons but are you seriously comparing it to like north korea??? this is fucking crazy also what company even can do???? its law from gov
• junon 1y ago
  "We" don't do anything. We have a very out-of-touch government at the moment. A lot of us would like things to be very, very different.
  • fvgvkujdfbllo 1y ago
    Iran or United States?
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • meindnoch 1y ago
      Yes.
    • junon 1y ago
      Well I'm speaking as an American, but knowing quite a few Iranians and at the risk of speaking a bit too broadly for them, I'd say definitely both. They are somewhat similar at the moment in some very unfortunate ways.
• honeybadger1 1y ago
  you can't just use harsh language to remove dictators or fascist leaders.
• koonsolo 1y ago
  So your proposal is that we do business with all these countries so they have thriving economies with more money they can invest into their government and military?
• klntsky 1y ago
  > with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. I dont't know what is this based on, but no, sanctions are needed to stop the other party from benefitting from economic activity, not to punish.
  • VerminOctopus1 1y ago
    Sounds like punishment to me.
• lelanthran 1y ago
  > I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government That's a total non-sequitor. GP stated that he will personally face prison time for going against the laws of his country. Why would anyone risk jail time for you? For your countrymen? Why don't you risk jail time for some other country?
• vovavili 1y ago
  >with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government The justification is reduced financial capacity for war and similar atrocities.
  • vFunct 1y ago
    It doesn't reduce financial capacity for war. It moves the war dollars to different countries.
• coldtea 1y ago
  >with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. That's the PR justification. The real one is "to hurt the countries and make them do as we say" and "because we can".
  • username332211 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • sporkxrocket 1y ago
      This is an ultra simplistic take. Iran does not like the role the US has in propping up Israel, entirely rational and understandable. Israel may not be recognized by our government as a "sworn enemy" but it's done infinitely more damage to the US and US citizens than Iran has. The only reason they're not sanctioned is because one of the ways Israel attacks the US is through bribery (AIPAC) and blackmail (Epstein).
      • vorpalhex 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • sporkxrocket 1y ago
          Israel literally killed 4 Americans two days ago.
          • vorpalhex 1y ago
            [flagged]
            • sporkxrocket 1y ago
              Incorrect, Israel killed an entire American family: https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military/four-americans-including-three-children-killed-in-israeli-strike-in-lebanon/ar-AA1N1P1c https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military/four-am... DHS nor the IDF are credible sources and neither have backed up their claims. That’s pure propaganda on their end.
• deadbabe 1y ago
  Those countries wouldn’t benefit even if the embargos were lifted. Cuba and North Korea would still be shitty places even if the US had no sanctions on them. There is nothing the US could provide these countries through trade that would suddenly make life better.
• hrbsoscbfo 1y ago
  > you > you > you You don’t understand what the word “you” means.
• petre 1y ago
  Well, that's too bad. Lifting sanctions opens up opportunities for non-alligned government spies and saboteurs. I recall there is a problem with remote workers from the DPRK employed by Western companies. These citizens are already collectively punished by their governments. I used to live in such a country until the US managed to lead on the USSR into bankrupting themselves. Thank you, America! Thank you Ronald Reagan for all the USSR jokes! Thank you Michael Gorbachev for letting it slide!
• gosub100 1y ago
  It's like saying "all you" Iranians are choosing to publicly hang political prisoners using (Western) construction equipment.
• roenxi 1y ago
  I just want to add one angle I don't think the other comments covered well - it is obvious that nobody pushing the propaganda angle ("encouraging them to rise up") is serious because the track record is far too clear. I can't think of an instance where sanctions have ever triggered a political change and if they do then it is rarer than a country's elites changing direction due to internal political concerns. Nobody believes sanctions will cause political change in their targets. It is almost unthinkable that they would. What could that even look like? If someone has the power to threaten a country then they don't need to actually levy the sanctions to get compliance. Countries only get sanctioned if the sanctions aren't enough pressure to cause change. The point of sanctions is to cripple the middle and lower classes, destroying a country's ability to fund a military. That actually makes it less likely for a dictatorship to get overthrown - the middle class is too poor to organise which is desirable from the West's perspective. Dictatorships are really bad at waging war effectively, they struggle to handle the complex logistics and are easier to distract and threaten.
  • frabcus 1y ago
    The example usually given by pro-sanctions campaigners is South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...)
    • roenxi 1y ago
      Do we have anything this century? And frankly; we're talking about something kicked off by 60s US and UK, that map in that wiki article could be mistaken for one of the British Empire. Nothing's impossible but it'll take more than a wiki article to give me confidence that sanctions were the primary political force operative here or that the apartheid system was actually the thing at issue. I would chalk it up as unusual circumstances.
      • graemep 1y ago
        > that map in that wiki article could be mistaken for one of the British Empire. Including most of western Europe, Japan, the whole of the US (including Alaska) etc?
• somenameforme 1y ago
  It's not for fun. It's that politicians are largely impotent in many situations, but refuse to accept this. I mean they're the leader of entire countries after all, and in the case of the US you're the leader of ostensibly the strongest military in the world, with enough nukes to end the world at your finger tips 24/7. How can you not be omnipotent, the most powerful person alive!? But then it turns out that war is too dirty, cyber stuff isn't dirty enough. So what's left? Economics - sanctions. We've carried out 374 ultra important meetings, and traveled to 73 different countries, to prepare this critical 974th package of sanctions. This time it'll actually do something and be totally more effective than other 973, in spite of the fact that obviously the most impactful things are the first to be sanctioned. It's obviously little more than theatrics, but it lets politicians feel powerful and like they're exerting influence on their enemies. And indeed, they may be responsible, at least in poorer countries for some people starving, which is then mental gymnasticed into 'Ah hah! They'll blame their government, overthrow them and become our ally, the people making them starve.' It's really a shock that seems to basically never come to fruition. Well except when you're sanctioning a third of the planet [1], including many of the most unstable places in the world, and any time there's a regime change in these places - 'Ah hah! See? Sanctions work!' The fact that said change would often have happened in any case is kindly swept aside. It's akin to the joke that Zerohedge has successfully predicted 53 of the last 3 economic recessions. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_sanct...
• guappa 1y ago
  This is also applied to italian citizens individually if they say documented facts about what is happening in Palestine.
• mgax 1y ago
  For fun?
• jaapz 1y ago
  > and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government. What other options are there, except idly sitting by or invading?
• wang_li 1y ago
  Not trading with a despot can just be not trading with a despot. It doesn't have to have an agenda. If I personally choose to boycott a sneaker brand because I have a firm belief that they run sweatshops in a foreign country, is that collective punishment? No, I'm just not supporting someone who doesn't align with my values. Even if, as a side effect, the workers won't be getting the pittance that they would have gotten from my purchase.
• matheusmoreira 1y ago
  I for one want the USA to apply more sanctions, not less. It's debatable whether country-wide sanctions are just or even effective but I still think they should be applying sanctions much more freely than they are now. The USA applied sanctions to the family members and law practice of a supreme court judge from my country literally yesterday. It's said this cut them off from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. It really kills their champagne socialism nonsense. They destroy my country and then enjoy foreign developed nations on taxpayer dime. You have no idea how good it feels to see these "gods" get what they deserve. I'll be forever thankful to Trump for it.
• breppp 1y ago
  So without sanctions or a military strike, how will a nuclear program will evaporate? spontaneously? Or do you think that nuclear blackmail like the NK case is something that should be accepted
• nmilo 1y ago
  This the exact same as the email from the post, but the other way around. Either both normal Iranians are responsible for arming Russians and normal Americans are responsible for sanctions, or neither are. In general I don’t like blaming people for the actions of their government.
  • Ajedi32 1y ago
    The US is a democracy, so Americans are, at least on a collective level, responsible for the actions of their government, though not on an individual level of course. Iran is a theocratic autocracy. Only the autocrat and his supporters bear any significant responsibility for the actions of the government there.
    • tgma 1y ago
      The US is not a democracy, by design. It’s a Constitutional Republic.
      • Ajedi32 1y ago
        A democratic constitutional republic. Often simply referred to as "a democracy" as a shorthand. The key distinguishing factor being that in a democracy powers are derived from the consent of the governed, as opposed to other forms of government (including some "constitutional republics") which do not allow open democratic elections.
        • tgma 1y ago
          Citation needed. Where did you get that additional term in front of it? Which United States founding document suggests that? Democratic Republic, just like People's Republic, is actually a euphemism for communism. What you are describing is "representative government" and "self government" not necessarily democracy. The will of the people is an abstract concept that is, depending on the issue, not always accurately measurable by equally weighted vote of a subset of the people that are enfranchised.
    • 1y ago
• ezoe 1y ago
  Well, we let China grow but there is no democracy or human right in China.