22 replies to this topic

[redlion]

There are two basic views (chime in if you think otherwise) that the US has taken since the energy crisis of 1979:

• the hawkish view, in which the US should exploit all soft power influence (notably economic sanctions) and reserve the right to use most hard power, or
• the dove-ish view, in which the US should use some types of soft power (most notably dialogue) and abstain from emphasizing hard power.

My personal view is that economic sanctions hurt the people, not the government. I think advocating increased democratization is the way to go, particularly in their university populations. In addition to learning science and falsifiability, teach them to apply it to their government's religious beliefs

I know I'm oversimplifying international relations with those generalizations, but I don't think that continuing the economic sanctions first developed in 1951 is the best course of action if we seek to normalize relations with Iran. They're not going anywhere. They're a big regional power, bordering on a major power. It's time we moved forward.

Where does everyone stand and why?

[Romy]

My personal view is that economic sanctions hurt the people, not the government. I think advocating increased democratization is the way to go, particularly in their university populations. In addition to learning science and falsifiability, teach them to apply it to their government's religious beliefs

I always saw economic sanctions as a way to increase social unrest. One way or the other, it does place a large amount of pressure on the Iranian government. (The bigger question is whether or not the effects are felt quickly enough.)

Sadly, establishing a lasting diplomatic relationship with Iran will be impossible unless the United States makes some serious concessions. Nuclear power/energy is a great example of concessions that would have to be made by either side.

I vehemently oppose military occupation unless violent intent has been demonstrated or vocalized. The last thing the U.S needs is another dragged out war.

[Waser Lave]

I always saw economic sanctions as a way to increase social unrest. One way or the other, it does place a large amount of pressure on the Iranian government. (The bigger question is whether or not the effects are felt quickly enough.)

That's what I consider to be the main effect of economic sanctions. In the case of Iran, it gives the government two choices with the money they have available, they can either spend that on military uses (including nuclear development) or on social uses like education, healthcare etc. If they choose to funnel it largely into the military they'll get increased social unrest and eventually either get a change of government or increased violence (increased democratisation would usually be a side effect of this as we've seen in the last few years with the protests by large numbers of Iranians). If they choose to funnel it largely into social uses then they have less to spend on military development. In both cases the sanctions have been effective at impacting the government and influencing their actions.

[Romy]

That's what I consider to be the main effect of economic sanctions. In the case of Iran, it gives the government two choices with the money they have available, they can either spend that on military uses (including nuclear development) or on social uses like education, healthcare etc. If they choose to funnel it largely into the military they'll get increased social unrest and eventually either get a change of government or increased violence (increased democratisation would usually be a side effect of this as we've seen in the last few years with the protests by large numbers of Iranians). If they choose to funnel it largely into social uses then they have less to spend on military development. In both cases the sanctions have been effective at impacting the government and influencing their actions.

I've always wondered whether or not Iran would react violently if really tough sanctions are placed on them.
Their government will take a huge hit if all the western powers (and China) cut all trade with them.
Will they lash out?

[Waser Lave]

I've always wondered whether or not Iran would react violently if really tough sanctions are placed on them.
Their government will take a huge hit if all the western powers (and China) cut all trade with them.
Will they lash out?

I don't think they'd want to get into a full war but I would expect them to try to damage other (Western) countries economically, probably by blocking or mining the Strait of Hormuz first which carries a significant amount of oil shipments from countries like the UAE. I suspect they'd probably want to avoid even doing that considering America has already said that they'll make sure to keep the Strait open for trade through force if necessary.

[Bone]

I don't think anything short of a regime change is going to cause a long-term shift in policy. There's reason to doubt a transition to democracy would be feasible, likely in the near future, or even be effective (see: Libya, Egypt.) And don't even get me started on US-initiated regime change...

Basically, there aren't any good choices, only some that are worse than others. The only thing the US/international community can do is to continue squeezing Iran and pressuring them with the IAEA.

How exactly do you propose we infiltrate Iran's educational system?

[NapisaurusRex]

I always saw economic sanctions as a way to increase social unrest. One way or the other, it does place a large amount of pressure on the Iranian government. (The bigger question is whether or not the effects are felt quickly enough.)

I think the effects are being felt quickly enough, just not by the right people. Like redlion said, some of these things don't hurt the government as bad as the people.

I've always wondered whether or not Iran would react violently if really tough sanctions are placed on them.
Their government will take a huge hit if all the western powers (and China) cut all trade with them.
Will they lash out?

I don't see this as an issue because I don't really see China and the western powers getting on the same page long enough to do something like that, especially if the island thing escalates. When their government is doing stuff like this though, it makes me think they don't care about their people or if there would be a violent reaction for anything at all. Also, unless something's changed recently, I don't think they are capable of creating much of a violent reaction by themselves that would hurt other countries more than themselves.

There are two basic views (chime in if you think otherwise) that the US has taken since the energy crisis of 1979:

• the hawkish view, in which the US should exploit all soft power influence (notably economic sanctions) and reserve the right to use most hard power, or
• the dove-ish view, in which the US should use some types of soft power (most notably dialogue) and abstain from emphasizing hard power.

My personal view is that economic sanctions hurt the people, not the government. I think advocating increased democratization is the way to go, particularly in their university populations. In addition to learning science and falsifiability, teach them to apply it to their government's religious beliefs
I know I'm oversimplifying international relations with those generalizations, but I don't think that continuing the economic sanctions first developed in 1951 is the best course of action if we seek to normalize relations with Iran. They're not going anywhere. They're a big regional power, bordering on a major power. It's time we moved forward.

Where does everyone stand and why?

I think we should leave everyone else alone and mind things over here. Wouldn't it take generations to educate and influence a government and religion like that, especially one with such a biased opinion of Americans?

[Romy]

I think the effects are being felt quickly enough, just not by the right people. Like redlion said, some of these things don't hurt the government as bad as the people.

I believe that the main purpose of the economic sanctions are to create civil unrest. They are meant to hurt/aggravate the people thus forcing the government to take action (one way or the other). However unfair they may be, they are effective.

I don't see this as an issue because I don't really see China and the western powers getting on the same page long enough to do something like that, especially if the island thing escalates. When their government is doing stuff like this though, it makes me think they don't care about their people or if there would be a violent reaction for anything at all. Also, unless something's changed recently, I don't think they are capable of creating much of a violent reaction by themselves that would hurt other countries more than themselves.

It's not unlikely.
China has shown displeasure and frustration towards the Iranian government. It wouldn't be unheard of.
(Check the spoiler for the articles. I forgot how to make the uber cool link/text thingy D: )

Spoiler

http://thediplomat.c...iran-diplomacy/

http://www.csmonitor...uclear-defiance

I think we should leave everyone else alone and mind things over here. Wouldn't it take generations to educate and influence a government and religion like that, especially one with such a biased opinion of Americans?

That is another can of worms altogether.
Should we prevent such an unstable country from potentially developing nuclear weapons?
Or are we doing this to prevent another world power from emerging?
Should we, having the capacity of correcting the plethora of wrongs the Iranian government has committed, intervene?
Or should we mind our own business and revert to Pre-WWII isolationism?

I still don't know ):

[NapisaurusRex]

I believe that the main purpose of the economic sanctions are to create civil unrest. They are meant to hurt/aggravate the people thus forcing the government to take action (one way or the other). However unfair they may be, they are effective.

yeah, I didn't see it like that...

It's not unlikely.
China has shown displeasure and frustration towards the Iranian government. It wouldn't be unheard of.
(Check the spoiler for the articles. I forgot how to make the uber cool link/text thingy D: )

Spoiler

http://thediplomat.c...iran-diplomacy/

http://www.csmonitor...uclear-defiance

Highlight word, then link button on the tool bar.
The Diplomat article is almost a year old now. yeah, I don't know, I don't think the Christian Science article is enough to convince me by itself that China has enough displeasure or frustration to team up with us to do anything about it.

That is another can of worms altogether.
Should we prevent such an unstable country from potentially developing nuclear weapons?
Or are we doing this to prevent another world power from emerging?
Should we, having the capacity of correcting the plethora of wrongs the Iranian government has committed, intervene?
Or should we mind our own business and revert to Pre-WWII isolationism?

I still don't know ):

I was under the impression they are already in development.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it's none of our business.
Yes.

[Romy]

Highlight word, then link button on the tool bar.

Thanks (:

The Diplomat article is almost a year old now. yeah, I don't know, I don't think the Christian Science article is enough to convince me by itself that China has enough displeasure or frustration to team up with us to do anything about it.

I'm too lazy to search for more xD
I only looked up the occasions and posted the first articles I saw D:

I was under the impression they are already in development.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it's none of our business.
Yes.

Then that means we would be turning our backs on an extremely unstable part of he world.
Remember that all it took for WWII to begin was the "Balkan Powder Keg" exploding.

Not that I'm choosing a stance myself, I'm just commenting.

[NapisaurusRex]

Then that means we would be turning our backs on an extremely unstable part of he world.
Remember that all it took for WWII to begin was the "Balkan Powder Keg" exploding.

Not that I'm choosing a stance myself, I'm just commenting.

Right. I think (the United States) turning it's back on it would make our economy pick back up though potentially to a place where we could fix it later. (Also like WWII)

Most of the world is extremely unstable right now. It seems like the whole world is unstable. Why pick that part to do something about, but not the others? How would you decide what to do something about?

[Romy]

Right. I think (the United States) turning it's back on it would make our economy pick back up though potentially to a place where we could fix it later. (Also like WWII)

Nope.
American economy exploded after WWII.
In fact, it was that war (weapon manufacturing, revival of American factories etc...) that managed to get us out of the Great Depression.

Most of the world is extremely unstable right now. It seems like the whole world is unstable. Why pick that part to do something about, but not the others? How would you decide what to do something about?

Like I said, I don't know.
That's more of a philosophical issue.

(Though...I do think that a 3rd world war is more likely to start in the middle east then lets say...Africa.)

[NapisaurusRex]

Nope.
American economy exploded after WWII.
In fact, it was that war (weapon manufacturing, revival of American factories etc...) that managed to get us out of the Great Depression.

Because we didn't get involved until later. If we had gotten involved in the beginning, we wouldn't have been able to do that. So if we return to isolationism, (like in the beginning of WWII) then we'll have the opportunity to rebuild, reorganize, etc. while other people spend money and buy from us (like in the middle of WWII) and then we'll have the ability to step in reasonably (like at the end.) See where I'm going with that? We're saying the same thing.

Like I said, I don't know.
That's more of a philosophical issue.

(Though...I do think that a 3rd world war is more likely to start in the middle east then lets say...Africa.)

I dunno... I think China.

[Romy]

Because we didn't get involved until later. If we had gotten involved in the beginning, we wouldn't have been able to do that. So if we return to isolationism, (like in the beginning of WWII) then we'll have the opportunity to rebuild, reorganize, etc. while other people spend money and buy from us (like in the middle of WWII) and then we'll have the ability to step in reasonably (like at the end.) See where I'm going with that? We're saying the same thing.

And let things like the Holocaust happen again? The murder of hundreds of Russians? The rape of thousands of Chinese women? The slaughter of thousands of Pacific Islanders? The destruction of the French government and the bombing of London?

I must say, you're willing to sacrifice a lot more then I am in order to have our economy recover.

[NapisaurusRex]

And let things like the Holocaust happen again? The murder of hundreds of Russians? The rape of thousands of Chinese women? The slaughter of thousands of Pacific Islanders? The destruction of the French government and the bombing of London?

I must say, you're willing to sacrifice a lot more then I am in order to have our economy recover.

If the economy doesn't recover, all of that and more will happen. What's the difference?

[Romy]

If the economy doesn't recover, all of that and more will happen. What's the difference?

...
Okay.

Though I must say...the fact that you value our economic status over the lives of millions of completely innocent people bothers me a bit.

Then again, I believe that if you can do something to help a person in need; you are obligated to do it.

[NapisaurusRex]

...
Okay.

Though I must say...the fact that you value our economic status over the lives of millions of completely innocent people bothers me a bit.

Then again, I believe that if you can do something to help a person in need; you are obligated to do it.

It's not just about that. It would save more lives to improve our economy and the world economy before trying to 'fix' anything else. I don't feel like the economic sanctions in place now are helping anything, but I don't think changing the approach would help anything either, unless the approach is to back off.

How would you do that would save lives?

Edited by Napiform, 20 September 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[Romy]

It's not just about that. It would save more lives to improve our economy and the world economy before trying to 'fix' anything else. I don't feel like the economic sanctions in place now are helping anything, but I don't think changing the approach would help anything either, unless the approach is to back off.

You want to completely back off Iran and only intervene once a full scale war ignites and a profit is to be made?

How would you do that would save lives?

Huh?

[NapisaurusRex]

You want to completely back off Iran and only intervene once a full scale war ignites and a profit is to be made?

Because that's how more people will be saved. Otherwise, we'll jump in, get in more debt, then the debts will either have to be paid or we'll end up in another war at the same time in Senkaku/Diaoyu/Africa/Isreal/whatever and not have the means to do it all. More people will die that way all over the world. If we wait a little while, then people will still die. Innocent people are dying right now all over the world. I'm not saying it's right. But the more things are spread out and depleted, then the less resources will be available when they're needed on a larger scale.

Back to the WWII analogy, if the US had jumped in fully at the beginning, do you think we would have had the resources or means to do anything about it at the end? I feel like everything would have gone a different way if we hadn't waited.

You said huh? I worded that question poorly. What I meant was, how do you think things should go right now to save more lives than waiting?

[Romy]

Because that's how more people will be saved. Otherwise, we'll jump in, get in more debt, then the debts will either have to be paid or we'll end up in another war at the same time in Senkaku/Diaoyu/Africa/Isreal/whatever and not have the means to do it all. More people will die that way all over the world. If we wait a little while, then people will still die. Innocent people are dying right now all over the world. I'm not saying it's right. But the more things are spread out and depleted, then the less resources will be available when they're needed on a larger scale.

Again, we shouldn't stretch ourselves thin. I said we should target places where a full blown global war has the potential to erupt thus preventing anything like WWII.

Back to the WWII analogy, if the US had jumped in fully at the beginning, do you think we would have had the resources or means to do anything about it at the end? I feel like everything would have gone a different way if we hadn't waited.

The manufacturing of weapons was what spurred the American economy and allowed recovery. We would have recovered once we gave the factories a reason to produce weapons.

You said huh? I worded that question poorly. What I meant was, how do you think things should go right now to save more lives than waiting?

The idea is to prevent war altogether. Not to stand idly by as one starts up and then have to decide when to intervene.

[NapisaurusRex]

Again, we shouldn't stretch ourselves thin. I said we should target places where a full blown global war has the potential to erupt thus preventing anything like WWII.

But where is there a place a full blown global war doesn't have potential? Canada? To cover all of those places, we'll be stretched thin.

The manufacturing of weapons was what spurred the American economy and allowed recovery. We would have recovered once we gave the factories a reason to produce weapons.

Because we were selling/trading them instead of using them. Once we started using them, the economy went down again. There wasn't anything coming in exchange.

The idea is to prevent war altogether. Not to stand idly by as one starts up and then have to decide when to intervene.

I think we're past that point.

I also think we went a little off topic, but this is kind of interesting. Wanna make a different thread?

[Romy]

But where is there a place a full blown global war doesn't have potential? Canada? To cover all of those places, we'll be stretched thin.

I'd say covering the middle east is our safest bet.
Though..I see your point.

Because we were selling/trading them instead of using them. Once we started using them, the economy went down again. There wasn't anything coming in exchange.

I think I should reserve my judgement until I research the economic trends at the time :l
I'd hate to make a point on my own speculation and end up looking like an ass.

I think we're past that point.

I also think we went a little off topic, but this is kind of interesting. Wanna make a different thread?

Sure!
What would the new topic be though?

[Waser Lave]

Nope.
American economy exploded after WWII.
In fact, it was that war (weapon manufacturing, revival of American factories etc...) that managed to get us out of the Great Depression.

The profiteering for a couple of years while Europe and Asia suffered and burned probably helped a bit too.