3 ms·
Economic sanctions are an act of war. It's the citizens that are hurt the most.
by cpursley 13y ago
Economic sanctions are an act of war. It's the citizens that are hurt the most.
- claudius 13y agoThe citizens that elected rather unfriendly presidents and governments.
- discardorama 13y agoYou mean, like George W Bush? Or O'Bomber?
- astrodust 13y ago"Elected" implies choice. Both sides have more than their fair share of those that coasted in because of ineffective opposition.
- cpursley 13y agoThe US is proving to be a rather bad actor. Drones. NSA Spying. Indefinite detention. Should the rest of the world place economic sanctions on the US?
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThis is stereotypical "point spread" moral relativism. The standards with which American citizens hold their government to should of course be quite high, but by no means should we take failure to meet those standards to be in remotely the same league as the sorts of activities the Iranian regime undertakes.
- ferdo 13y agoHow many countries has Iran invaded in the past 20 years? How many civilian dead in foreign countries can be laid at the feet of the Iranian military? Please recall that the US backed Saddam against Iran once upon a time.
- tome 13y agoThe point is not how much has it done, but how much it would have done if it had the power. If Iran and the US had swapped places there would have been far more death and destruction across the world, all in the name of religious supremacy. I can't say I like what the US is doing with drone strikes and repeated, unwinnable wars, but don't think for a minute that Iran would be a beneficient world hegemon. The world would be an awful place to live.
- ferdo 13y ago> If Iran and the US had swapped places there would have been far more death and destruction across the world...religious supremacy. That's a supposition for which you have no support. The fact is that non-religious States have murdered far more civilians in the past 100 years than any religion has. That's not a defense of religion. It's a simple statement of historical fact.
- tome 13y agoMy statement is a counterfactual, so it's certainly hard to prove. But look at who runs that country, why they run it and what their values are. > That's not a defense of religion. It's a simple statement of historical fact. It's also completely irrelevant.
- ferdo 13y agoHistory is relevant. Always.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoIran is the primary sponsor of Hezbollah, a terror organization which targets civilians as a matter of policy and has participated in wars in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Syria. Right now they are backing the Assad regime, for example. That's aside from all this other stuff, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism And the fact that the Iranian way of dealing with peaceful demonstrations in its own country is to use truncheons and snipers. And the cozy relations between Iran and North Korea, especially in regards to nuclear weapons and missile development. The Iranians may be, overall, nice people, but their regime is one of the worst on the globe.
- pekk 13y agoWho elected the Supreme Leader of Iran? (Actual answer: the previous Supreme Leader of Iran.)
- GabrielF00 13y agoWhat about sponsoring murders and bombings in other countries? To highlight just a few: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (whose only crime was writing a book that Ayatollah Khomeini never read), which resulted in the death of his Japanese translator and numerous injuries and bombings; bombings against Jewish targets in places like Argentina (the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires killed 85); sponsorship of Hezbollah, which has attacked people around the globe; sponsorship of Palestinian terrorist groups, etc. The Iranian regime is a very bad actor and economic sanctions are warranted.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]