So if our sanctions on Iran were imposed on us, do you think military action would be justified?Originally Posted by RickyJ
So if our sanctions on Iran were imposed on us, do you think military action would be justified?
I think it depends. Iran is trading with others that will trade. They also don't have the power (maybe) to strike. It's like a little guy attacking a big bullie. Now, if the little guy has a gun, then it might even it out a bit.
No they aren't an act of war; going by what the common definition of war is. They are an act of aggression that can be dealt with peacefully.
Well if you don't believe sanctions are an act of war then I agree with you. I guess I'm looking for answers then from those who do believe sanctions are an act of war.
A sanction is a hostile action that leads its victims to become more independent and possibly more likely to do business more with others that don't sanction. (that's why sanctions are not profitable) But to claim a sanction to be completely unjust is to claim the production, of whomever is sanctioning you, as your own. We don't own those people's wealth or production. It is their choice to do business with us.
Last edited by fr33; 02-03-2013 at 10:51 PM.
It amazes me some people don't see it this way. (I believe you hit the nail on the head on how our sanctions affect a nation) Someone previously stated that it may depend on whether or not they 'convince' (extort, 'persuade') other nations not to trade may affect the perception of whether or not they are acts of war. It very well might, but rest assured should we be sanctioned as countries we have sanctioned have been (not a possibility, with current situations I know) we would probably declare a war.
So I ask if our sanctions on Iran were instead imposed on us, do you think military action in that country is justified? If so, who or what exactly do you attack/destroy?
Do you not see the difference between us imposing sanctions on a particular country while using political leverage and foreign aid to 'persuade' other countries to do the same and a small (sovereign, I would like to remind) nation imposing sanctions on us? I need not Rand Paul explanations on sanctions. They further encourage aggression, (which otherwise may have been simmered down through diplomacy) they strengthen the country's political class by way of people relying more on them for everyday necessities as well as through a sense of false nationalism, they ultimately lead to the deaths of many; mainly the elderly and children, they breed blowback from said impoverished kids who grow up fed the opposite of American exceptionalism. (books we may well have supplied, I might add) Simply, it is a foolish foreign policy. The effects are great and not often seen for a period of time.
ETA: Not to mention that Iran is not seeking nuclear warfare capabilities. They are part of the NPT and they have purposes for their admitted nuclear activities. (medical radioisotopes, energy etc.) Also, you can't prove a negative. They say they don't have WMDs, we say they do. What, do we have to invade Iran to determine definitively one way or the other? Yellow cake Uranium rings a bell.
It aint our damn business if they were concentrating U235 for weaponry anyways. Israel is more than capable. The propaganda runs deep... and I'm very much getting tired of debunking it.
A government forces a business to stop doing business with a country that it wants to sanction. The sanctioned country does not want to attack the business, they are friendly, it's the government forcing the business.
ah, don't bite. I'm in agreement
edit: My response was to, what should we do if someone did it to us. Not what devastation we are doing as the big bully.
Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 02-03-2013 at 11:08 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
