4 ms·

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

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.
- aniviacat 1y ago
  > Wokeness and leftist logic just has to stop before is destroys the planet. Go Trump! This addition is entirely unnecessary in a discussion about the validity of sanctions. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
im3w1l 1y ago
This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.
kelnos 1y ago
I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.) Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc. I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran. But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.
- wartywhoa23 1y ago
  >It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens
zokier 1y ago
It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation
- xg15 1y ago
  I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind. Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision. UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries. But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place". It makes no sense.
dh2022 1y ago
I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.
- xg15 1y ago
  That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.

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.
aniviacat 1y ago
> Wokeness and leftist logic just has to stop before is destroys the planet. Go Trump! This addition is entirely unnecessary in a discussion about the validity of sanctions. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

im3w1l 1y ago

This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.

kelnos 1y ago

I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.) Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc. I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran. But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.

wartywhoa23 1y ago
>It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens

zokier 1y ago

It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation

xg15 1y ago
I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind. Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision. UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries. But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place". It makes no sense.

dh2022 1y ago

I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.

xg15 1y ago
That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.