41–50 of 157 posts
Can someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...
The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.
Can someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...
The world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1]. [0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now". [1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether…
Yeah, and ISIS has been fighting with American weapons for years. Hypocrisy much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about the sanctions that the article is, i.e. the pre-deal ones that Meng Wanzhou is accused of violating. That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons [0]. An accurate evaluation of why the US chose to withdraw from that deal is probably not possible with publicly available information. The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, so…
> That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons Of course. And I think it's a blatant lie. > The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate The IAEA opinion is that we do, and that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal.
It's possible I missed something, I would be surprised though since the IAEA is pretty tight lipped. To quote an IAEA statement [0] made a week before the US withdrew from the deal
> In line with standard IAEA practice, the IAEA evaluates all safeguards-relevant information available to it. However, it is not the practice of the IAEA to publicly discuss issues related to any such information.
[0] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-on-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.
The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
America has been diligently trying to overthrow the Iranian government for nearly 70 years, _long_ before Iran started their nuclear program in 1970: In 1953, the CIA baited the Iranian coup d'état by covertly supporting pro-shaw groups. The shaw was then overthrown in 1979, bringing Khomeini to power as the Supreme Leader. Our role in the later Iranian revolution isn't as clear, yet. After that the 2009 Persian Awak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?
This isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei. Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.
Doesn't change the fact that it should be up to that country's prosecutors to do the enforcement - not the governments of Canada or the USA. International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties. If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1]. [0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now". [1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether…
Yup we can only achieve world peace if it's just us who owns nuclear weapons. If the goal is really that, the U.S. wouldn't be flashing its nuclear arsenal.