241–250 of 891 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why do you feel capable to judge if somebody is OK with what their government is doing or not? It’s really that simple: you cannot, unless they explicitly state it.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People here make it easy on themselves by blaming everything on "the government," but you should never underestimate the level of brainwashing. According to independent polls, it's more like 50% of Iranians still support their government. And it used to be closer to 80% a few years ago. I was lucky enough to be born into one of the wealthier nations, and our trust levels are much lower, despite our government doing n…
Independent polls? How do you conduct such a poll reliably when there are legitimate consequences in expressing you have a certain opinion?
Tales from an insider don't help very much, because people will only report about their own bubble, the city/province/town they live in, their family and friends of similar interest and social status, their workplace, etc. Also, there can be a severe selection bias, people wanting to talk to outsiders on the internet or even leave a country are probably more often critical of a regime and its decisions.
So from the outside, the only sensible thing we can do is see the country as a whole, lump in the government with the people. Because we cannot really know if people think differently and who they are. We cannot isolate or punish "just the government". And if there were a majority against the current government, there would be a revolution at some point. If there isn't one, opposition against the regime just isn't strong enough.
Most educated Iranians hate their government. The problem is that a revolution isn't easy when the government has all the guns, and the military & revolutionary guard remain loyal, and have no problem with shooting masses of innocent civilians to retain their power. Sanctions that worsen things for ordinary people really isn't going to change much in countries like this. It would be much more productive to try turn t…
The primary intent of sanctions isn't to foment revolution -- policymakers are well aware of the reality you outline. The actual intent of sanctions is to cause economic damage. In that respect this is an account of the sanctions working exactly as intended: they are making it harder for OP to work as a software developer, which makes it harder for the Iranian regime to benefit (directly or indirectly) from the effor…
It's probably some kind of coping mechanism for not knowing anything about the people they're talking about, or they want to keep their world view nice and clean: we, the good guys, VS them, the uncivilized bad guys. It's as accurate as saying "all Americans are pro Maga white Christians because obviously if they weren't their government would be different"
OP, some context from the other side might be helpful. Yes, there are fines for American companies if they do business with Iranians. That's how sanctions work as I'm sure you're aware. But the story doesn't stop there. If an American finds out they are transacting with a sanctioned individual, or citizens of a sanctioned country like Iran or North Korea, the stakes go up: $1M USD fine and up to 20 years in federal p…
> 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 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. Their authoritarian militaristic government that doesn't care for human rights…
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.
First, there is the law, and many jurisdictions forbid me from providing any services to individuals and/or businesses in certain countries. See other comments here for details, but these are serious matters.
Second, there is my moral beliefs. I go through life trying to draw a moral line and if something is beyond that line, I take action. Your line might be different. You might be a forever-whataboutist, avoiding taking any action and always saying "but what about X or Y?", trying to point out that I am inconsistent in my actions or beliefs. Well I don't subscribe to whataboutism and I believe it is the cause of much of today's world problems. So I refuse to provide service to some countries, because I cannot stand idly while genocide happens. If your country is involved in genocide, target killing of civilians, or actively helps another country to do so, I do not want to deal with you.
Some will say that individuals are not responsible for actions of their countries. I disagree. For better or worse, the passport you hold brings with it certain benefits and obligations, and ties you to a country. That's how we agreed to run this world. If your country commits horrific crimes, it's time to take action: oppose the authorities, escape the country, apply for asylum, renounce your citizenship. Yes, I know all these are unpleasant and dangerous. So are the bombs your country is dropping onto my friends right now. Taking the "but individuals are not responsible" stance means that I have to watch as some people from countries that are killing my friends live well in safe places, standing on the sidelines and waiting things out, while keeping the option to return to their country once things blow over. Writing blog posts about the finer points of modern Apple design while people get raped and murdered by the army of their country. I don't feel that is right. There must be consequences if your country commits atrocities. Don't like the consequences? Don't let your country get to the point that it commits atrocities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Swift wasn’t blocked. There were targeted sanctions against certain banks.
This seems like legalistic perspective. What percentage of Russia's foreign transactions went through those banks? Certainly, normal people can't normally transfer money to/from Russia. The same for almost all companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to agree with this line of reasoning, but then I saw that the same process was used to block war crimes investigators from using Microsoft's software.
Except that didn't happen https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...
In your linked article Microsoft say they didn’t block “the ICC”, but also mention the “disconnection of an official”.
They were accused of blocking a single individual (the chief prosecutor), and the response is basically “we didnt block the whole organisation”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is understandable as a foreigner! Look up our federal prison system sometime. The description is apt. You either kill someone, or become someone's bitch on the first day, then you'll be alright. (It's an Office Space reference, btw, but our prisons are genuinely inhumane and not rehabilitative.)
Your reply to that comment is understandable as an American… in that you got your understanding of your own prison system from your own popular media. Also in the assumption that a foreigner would or could get an Office Space reference, unless they live in a country America has already successfully culturally colonized. The point is that the homophobic trope doesn’t add anything to the information given, while it doe…
>Iranian IPs are blocked here, due to your decision to arm Russia with drones so that they can indiscriminately massacre civilians. The "your decision" in that response is really off-putting. I know the law is what it is with sanctions like this. However, it is a failing of basic human empathy to blame other common citizens of a country for the actions of their government while we almost certainly do not endorse all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This frustrates me as well. It is so incredibly common, yet it never passes even basic scrutiny. For one, even in typical modern democracies, the active administration is chosen by like a third of the voting population via a first-pass-the-post system or a close analog of it. It's easy to ignore this when things are going okay, but becomes very uncomfortable all of a sudden when that changes. And this is to say nothi…
> the active administration is chosen by like a third of the voting population Not really. The number of people who might change their minds and thus swing the result either way is indeed small. But it isn't accurate to say they are the ones that choose . The people in guaranteed states/counties still choose; it's just that almost always choose the same answer. But even that doesn't mean they can be ignored. They can…
> Not really.
Yes, REALLY. In fact it can be even worse.
See the latest (June 2023) elections in Greece [1] (supposedly the cradle of democracy): First party got a 40.56% on a 53.74% turnout. I.e. around 22% of the electorate. Yet, this was adequate to yield a solid parliamental majority for 4 years.
Also mind that the election system had been changed to allow this travesty by the very same party and PM that won the June 2023 elections.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2023_Greek_parliamentary_...