Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

And then when they DO attack someone, people will use it for justification of starving them in the first place.  "Look at those bad bad Iranians, attacking their neighbors."

Eh, in today's world that's pretty impossible to pull off. Hence why a lot of government's "national interests" involve oppressive internet control.

[Levi]

Eh, I'm getting annoyed.  I think I'll just shut up in general.   

[Neonivek]

And then when they DO attack someone, people will use it for justification of starving them in the first place.  "Look at those bad bad Iranians, attacking their neighbors."

Eh, in today's world that's pretty impossible to pull off. Hence why a lot of government's "national interests" involve oppressive internet control.

By the by... This includes the USA.

The USA HEAVILY controls the media and internet when it best serves them. It is why the image of Iraq is an image of a bloodless war.

Instead of what it more accurately was... A slaughtering war.

[Korbac]

We could try a global disarmamenBWAHAHAHAHA

Was thinking about this. The thought occurred that there could be an international project to create something which would seek and defuse ALL nukes, e.g. nanomachines. But every country would try to hide code in the nanobots so they didn't disassemble their nukes, or they'd changed the electronic signatures on their nukes, etc.

TCALSS, nukes are here to stay. You think we've got it bad? Into the future, people will have to deal with planet glassing. How cool it sounds, until you realize that you can be utterly destroyed with no hope of survival. (At least a nuke has something like a 1 in 100,000 survival chance.)

[Gantolandon]

Sanctions are how countries express substantial disapproval with one another, barrier troops just shot deserters. The only thing these two concepts have in common is that they involve persuasion, which can apply to almost any interaction between people.

Barrier troops are a mean to persuade people not to desert. It's the government expressing substantial disapproval with its soldiers.

That's just ridiculous. What, do you think what's going on now is any kind of self-determination, with the electoral fraud and the theocracy above it? The public executions? The mandatory veiling laws?

I don't understand this logic. If they are victims of a totalitarian government, how ethical exactly is forcing them to take up arms by purposely destroying economy in their country and making their lives even more miserable? How do you teach someone self-determination by beating him up or telling him that he'd better do what you want or he'll have no meal today?

You seem to be advocating that we just let that keep happening without objection. Well, I can't abide by that. And if the Iranians need to be pushed, then they need to be pushed, but in the end the choice of the new government is their own. The fact that the best government for the people is also one that the US would probably approve of does not invalidate that.

Nice to see that "white man's burden" meme is still alive.

By demonstrating the failures of the current government. And it isn't starving them so much as it is pressuring them, Iran's economy is bad because of the sanctions, not collapsed entirely.

No. The current government has now a great way to handwave any economic difficulties which could arise without sanctions - it's all because Americans. This is exactly what Castro did, after all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't understand this logic. If they are victims of a totalitarian government, how ethical exactly is forcing them to take up arms by purposely destroying economy in their country and making their lives even more miserable? How do you teach someone self-determination by beating him up or telling him that he'd better do what you want or he'll have no meal today?

The totalitarian governments of today are smarter than the totalitarian governments of yesterday. They focus on keeping all practical control while doing just enough for the people that they're afraid to fight back.

You seem to be advocating that we just let that keep happening without objection. Well, I can't abide by that. And if the Iranians need to be pushed, then they need to be pushed, but in the end the choice of the new government is their own. The fact that the best government for the people is also one that the US would probably approve of does not invalidate that.

Nice to see that "white man's burden" meme is still alive.

Oh bullshit. This has nothing to do with race and you know it. I've explained before how Iran is in a situation where the people are stuck. There's enough for them that revolting openly isn't worth it, but not enough to be a free society. That's just how the theocracy wants it, too. An outside force is needed to throw off the balance.

[scriver]

While I don't think it's racist, it's still the same principle (they don't know what's good for them), not to mention that it's utter bullshit. There are plenty of cases where the USA have approved of repressive dictatorship over an elected democratic government.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While I don't think it's racist, it's still the same principle (they don't know what's good for them), not to mention that it's utter bullshit.

Then you aren't listening to me at all, because the whole idea is that they know what's good for them and will reach out and take it once knocked out of the malaise of "acceptable but bad" that modern dictatorships employ by an outside force, that being these sanctions.

There are plenty of cases where the USA have approved of repressive dictatorship over an elected democratic government.

Yes, yes, terrible actions in the past. Only more reason to start doing things like this for the sake of the future. Hell, the US is responsible for Iran's current state, so that's only more reason to start trying to fix it.

[mainiac]

Ah the "US does it too" argument.  Look, there's two reasons why this is crap:
1) The US operates on a much, much larger scale then Iran does.  The US committed most of it's misdeeds in the period of time where it was struggling against either Nazi's or Soviet's, two regimes which were clearly a lot worse then the US on human rights regards.  You can disagree (as I do) that resorting to dirty tactics helped the US but at least the US can play the "to prevent greater evil" excuse.
2) Since 1990 when the US became a world hegemon the US has acted in a notably less dickish fashion.  Yeah Iraq was a pretty dick move but it's child's play compared to what hegemons typically pull.  Look at South America since the Cold War ended.  Without Soviet counter-action we could have done whatever we pleased.  With the cold war over, South American democracy isn't interfered with and Hugo Chavez is allowed to say all sorts of nasty things about us without the slightest fear of repercussions.  Does anybody seriously think that Iran would play nice if given a free hand?  After the crap they have pulled in Lebanon and Syria and Iraq?

[Gantolandon]

The totalitarian governments of today are smarter than the totalitarian governments of yesterday. They focus on keeping all practical control while doing just enough for the people that they're afraid to fight back.

I don't get from this part why forcing someone to fight them is more ethical than it was ever.

Oh bullshit. This has nothing to do with race and you know it.

Despite its name, it doesn't have to do anything with race (historically it did, though). It was just an idea that the more civilized countries (usually the speaker's country and all these he considered civilized) had a moral obligation to uplift poor, ignorant savages who can't possibly decide for themselves. Usually it was used as a pretext to conquer them and turn their lands into a colony.

I don't see many differences here, except of lacking the race qualifier. Stupid Iranians are somewhat slow in making a proper decision, so USA has to bitchslap them until they comply. But hey, at least this time they get to do the dirty job themself.

There's enough for them that revolting openly isn't worth it, but not enough to be a free society. That's just how the theocracy wants it, too. An outside force is needed to throw off the balance.

If there is not enough of them to have a meaningful revolt, how could you even hope that they would somehow form a free country, instead of slipping into another dictatorship? To do that, you need the people to believe in the idea that their voice means something and they have the right to decide about themselves. You are not sending that message by destroying their country until they are so destitute they have no other choice. Why to even care about who's in power? It's clearly obvious that it's the foreign empire who gets to decide first.

Then you aren't listening to me at all, because the whole idea is that they know what's good for them and will reach out and take it once knocked out of the malaise of "acceptable but bad" that modern dictatorships employ by an outside force, that being these sanctions.

If your life suddenly becomes worse because a foreign country imposed sanctions on you, why would you even blame your government for that?


Edit:

Yes, yes, terrible actions in the past. Only more reason to start doing things like this for the sake of the future. Hell, the US is responsible for Iran's current state, so that's only more reason to start trying to fix it.

I missed this one and I probably shouldn't have. It really looks like a pathological marriage, where the abusive spouse just won't sign divorce papers because of course his family needs him! They can't survive without his help despite the fact he is the source of most of their problems. And seriously, Iranians, why did you make us hit you?

[Reelya]

Gotta agree with that, what if America was under some form of attack, and the attackers said "rebel against the American government and it all stops - we're the good guys here!" how would YOU react?

It could be a 9/11-style attack, but if you don't like that - how about the foreign nation interdict ALL America's oil shipments? Sending gas prices stratospheric and causing severe rationing.

Would you call for civil war to overthrow the US government, or would you protest to the government to counter-attack the nation running the embargo?

[mainiac]

If your life suddenly becomes worse because a foreign country imposed sanctions on you, why would you even blame your government for that?

Why do you support democratic governance when democracy leads to all the problems in your government?

Your question assumed that the Iranian people would blame the Americans for the sanctions without looking at the faults of their own government.  But seeing as the government had to usurp the last elections and the Iranian people know it, it's safe to say that they do not give their government the benefit of the doubt.  The current sanctions on Iran are in direct response to the fraud in the last election which Iranians were pissed about so it's pretty natural for them to blame their government.

Gotta agree with that, what if America was under some form of attack, and the attackers said "rebel against the American government and it all stops - we're the good guys here!" how would YOU react?

If the US government started overturning elections then I would support sanctions against the US until fair elections resumed.

[Gantolandon]

Why do you support democratic governance when democracy leads to all the problems in your government?

Your question assumed that the Iranian people would blame the Americans for the sanctions without looking at the faults of their own government.  But seeing as the government had to usurp the last elections and the Iranian people know it, it's safe to say that they do not give their government the benefit of the doubt.  The current sanctions on Iran are in direct response to the fraud in the last election which Iranians were pissed about so it's pretty natural for them to blame their government.

OK, I'm really trying to understand that.

You are being bossed around by a person, called A. He is a dick who threatens you and you suspect he doesn't give shit about you, despite him claiming otherwise. You won't rebel against him because this would be risky and you don't feel it would be worth it.

Now there is a person B, who wants something from A. So he approaches him and makes him an ultimatum - either he caves in, or he will just take meals from you, until you risk your life to beat A up with a gas pipe. A mind process, let's call it X, makes you to decide that A is the ultimate source of your misery (instead of B, who starves you, using you both as a hostage and a potential proxy to wage his war for him). Can you, please, define X?

[Reelya]

Some context on the previous Iranian nuclear program:

according to subsequent assessments by the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ended in 2003. In the most recent NIE, in paragraphs purged from the publicly available document, it was revealed that the weapon was being developed to target Iraq, not Israel. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled Saddam Hussein, the Iranians shut down the programme.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201288142724224103.html

Haha, seems they were gearing up to nuke Saddam, and dropped the whole thing after Gulf War II. And the US administration already knew all this, but they didn't want "We, the people" to know it.

[Mephansteras]

Erm...Sanctions aren't an attack. They're a refusal to do business.

Here' a better analogy:

Say your boss is an overbearing Jerk that everyone hates so they declare that unless he cleans up his act they're not going to do business with your company. Your livelihood depends on your company making enough money to stay afloat.

Who do you blame, your Boss or the people who are refusing to do business with your company because of your boss?

This is a much closer scenario to what's going on with Iran.