Decades of sanctions haven't worked in Cuba and didn't work in Iraq.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Iran's economy collapses under sanctions -- hyperinflation, riots, whole shebang
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Decades of sanctions haven't worked in Cuba and didn't work in Iraq.
aronnov reborn
Banned
wait.. so sanctions actually work?
Sanctions never really "work". In the end, the country trudges along for years in a kind of economical purgatory, or everything crashes, and you breed many more citizens who despise the country imposing said sanctions.
Not at all. I guarantee these sanctions have just made the general populace of Iran more anti-US or West and could cause blowback further down the line.
So if Canada cuts exports to the US, on condition that they let us into their military facilities, the US should comply?
WeAreStarStuff
Member
To this day it still boggles my mind that the only country that has used nukes tries to dictate who can and cannot have said capacity.
Not saying we should or we shouldn't, simply that the degree to which we need them should dictate how seriously we consider complying with their request.
All nations should have nukes.
Or none. Those are the only two non hypocritical options.
Because they have copious amounts of oil that certain powers might need to get at, at some point, or affect the contracts and sales of. So it's in the best interests of certain nations that they don't have such a prominent deterrent.
People and countries don't just give up stuff they invested billions into.
you just chastised someone else for not having proper proof, doing so yourself doesn't make it any better
because "fair" doesn't work in international politics, and because their culture and ideology are so different then the western one, the west doesn't wish them to become a regional powerhouse
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I wouldn't go that far. The nuclear "game" is best played between powers that are capable of building large, secure arsenals of warheads, which they can deliver reliably in a second strike capacity. They have to have technical expertise in rocketry as well as nuclear science. If a country can't have a "secure" arsenal (in both senses of the word; it must be able to control its own arsenal, and it must not be possible to destroy the arsenal in a first-strike against the nation), then it is probably better they don't have anything.
Ideally yes, but north Korea trumps this its alleged that it will implode in the next 3 years.
Pakistan when Khan gave them the bomb, the US provided equipment and detectors. USSR when it fell apart. Are all real world examples.
I agree with the comment. I do not consider Iran to be one of these countries that would fit in this catagory. I consider Israel to be closer to fit the description you describe with the use of agents killing Iranian nuclear scientists. Constantly trying to convince the US to attack Iran via air strikes and so on.
FYI, I am British, origins are Indian. I have nothing against the UK or USA but I don't like our foreign policies (the ones I loosely know about that is) and how we exploit the weak for our own gain.
How else does the West live in such luxury then?
What do you mean exactly? How should the west maintain the current state of luxury we live in?
Is this rhetorical and are you suggesting that I am hypocritical of enjoying the benefits of exploitation of weak countries while condemning their actions?
edit: I finish in 10 mins so err I might respond some time in the next 48 hours :\
I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, though I do find it odd that people always get angry with abusive foreign policy but it's through that policy that western countries can enjoy cheap (relatively) oil, labour and goods that we would otherwise be paying out the nose for. Americans especially (and we aren't much better in Canada) would lose their shit if they had to pay higher prices on basic goods that are made possible by being the 'big dog'.
CHEEZMO™
Obsidian fan
Lots of them want to, but we saw in 2009 what could happen.
TheNatural
My Member!
Except its just not the US. It's a ton of countries that don't want Iran to have nukes. Probably because of the entire batshit theocracy destroy Israel thing.
what? Lets punish the innocent citizens of countries because they're government sucks!
CyclopsRock
Member
The US is almost energy neutral. Oil is traded on world markets - what does the US do to lower oil prices, when 79% of the worlds oil is controlled by OPEC?
Understandable, I learnt early about the British rule and how it affected India. I also understand that we would be paying through the roof unless we had a massive overhaul of our economic/political system.
I generally am more pissy about people who act like they understand the situation but really have no idea especially when people go hungry and getting hurt on a large scale such as this. Its what generally prompts me to set the record straight as best as I can. I might not know the facts but I can at least go to wikipedia and read shit myself to confirm if someone is chatting crap about a position they hold just because they benefit from it.
I'm out of here. In a bit guys :3
CHEEZMO™;42850728 said:
Rarely is their a successful revolution without bloodshed.
Iranians can decide to hate America for protecting it's own interests, or they can muster up the courage to overthrow the regime who's policies have put them in this situation.
Like or it not, the US is the superpower in this scenario... and everyone crying about how it's not fair that the playing field is not level, should come back to reality and accept that.
People saying sanctions don't work are delusional. It's supposed to make it tough on the country who is being sanctioned. If thinsg get bad enough, one of two things will happen:
1. The regime will change policy
2. The people will change regime
The regime will hang on as long as it can, so it's up to the people to make a move. The Arab Spring showed what can be accomplished when the people take a stand.
Don't solely blame America for what has been an ongoing issue for 30+ years ago. Both countries participated in this stand-off. This isn't just about nukes. This goes beyond that.
CHEEZMO™
Obsidian fan
I don't honestly know.
You're insane if you think a country isn't a threat just because they haven't used them.
What, you mean worse off?
Reneledarker
Banned
This type of economic sanctions rarely work, they usually just encourage the general population to hate more the States that imposed the sanctions.
Now smart sanctions that are targeted to the ruling elite, like freezing their bank accounts, might give a better result.
Now smart sanctions that are targeted to the ruling elite, like freezing their bank accounts, might give a better result.
CHEEZMO™;42851347 said:
It makes a lot of difference. Are we talking about a popular revolt against a government, a civil war situation, or some sort of Occupy like movement which has 'Lots' of people involved but isn't close to a revolt in any way.
Anything other than the first is not something any outside force should get stuck into. Taking sides in a civil war? Bad bad scene.
What if most of them decide the regime who has put them in this situation are the outside ones imposing the sanction? Don't forget pretty much every Iranian thinks they should have nuclear power.
Continue to deal with the consequences that comes with those policies?
Again, not saying it's fair. Just saying it's reality.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
The US is not stopping them from using nuclear power - they already use nuclear power
OldAsUrSock
Banned
While Iran is not capable of hitting the USA right now it can hit Israel which is the USA's beset ally in the middle east and Israel is the most powerful middle east country right now.
Because all countries are the same!
False equivalency etc... say what you want about the US/Israel, but at least they don't execute gay people and forbid couples from holding hands in the streets.
Also, for the people who say Iran has a right for nuclear energy, they do.
They just need to agree to be supervised by the UN and disclose all of their nuclear operations, and not build a huge enrichment plant hidden within a mountain.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
That typo is marvelously accurate.
Renewable energy doesn't make medicines.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Boom.
It's not false equivalency at all. You're saying THEY can't have nuclear power while WE do because... we are good and they are bad? It's nonsense.
yodathesoda
Member
Or it forces the people to become irate at the irrational and harmful policies of their own government. Like what looks to be happening here. Government needs to be responsible for the chain reactions that occur based their policies and practices. Not everything can be solely blamed on the big bad USA.
The amount of people in this thread that believe that Iran is such a utopian, non-violent, harmless state even though their leadership has outright admitted to wanting to wipe another state off the globe and publicaly executes homosexuals is mind boggling.
1. Find one person in this thread who said the bold - even close to the bold, I'm giving you room for hyperbole
2. The worst you can point to is Ahmedinejad saying some shit along the lines of "Israel, in it's current form, won't be around forever"/"This regime should be wiped out" - also realize this is every day language among feuding countries. How many times do you think Israeli political leaders have threatened to bomb, destroy or even 'glass' Iran?
Edit: I've noticed a lot of people saying this whole "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map".
First of all - remember that 'wipe x off the map' is an English idiom, it doesn't really exist the same in a lot of other languages. Secondly, he didn't actually say that - the wiki on it is suuuuper comprehensive, and pretty straight forward:
the straight translation from Wikipedia
yodathesoda
Member
OK so he didn't say they will wipe Israel off the map, they said that they will "will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world". Sounds much more reasonable.
Care to comment on executing homosexuals, denying a holocost, torturing, murdering and imprisoning political activists? Sounds like the stable, peace loving people we'd love to ensure had nukes.
They never said they'd do it as far as I can tell, only that it'll happen one day, by the grace of God or some shit.
Uh sure?
Homosexual killing - horrible
denying holocaust - annoying, but tons of dumb people do this shit
torturing - again, horrible
political activists - horrible again
That does not mean that
1. Iran is building nukes
2. That Iran is threatening Israel with said nukes
3. That Iran is a particularly unstable country
4. That the sanctions are just
The United States is definitely a better country (ad by that I mean better government) than Iran. In a perfect world no one would have nukes, but in our own world we can at least try to keep the countries with crazy notions nuke-free.
By what metric? Iran is doing a hell of a lot better on the basis of countries invaded over the last 200 years for example. Appointing ourselves the judge and then declaring that we're better isn't something that makes sense to anybody else for obvious reasons.
It keeps coming back to SUPREME1's might makes right argument which isn't a morally justifiable one.
By punishing its citizens?
And the "We're going to fuck them until they love us" Mike Tyson logic as applied to foreign relations is ridiculous as well.
- Status