UK: we want Iran sanctions to hit people

reply to post by stumason


its funny that you mentioned east germany because i lived there for five years during the rebuilding boom
and if you would ask any of the east germans they would tell you that life was better for them whilst they were under control of the russians , since the west took control they asset stripped east german industry and threw the east germans out of thier jobs , up until the unification there was no unemployment in east germany , look at it now !

and what i wrote on here was about the british government not acting in the interest of the british public , i never said anything about a police state .

reply to post by Freeborn


the alternative is leave these people alone and stop interfering in their regime , we may not like it but it is theirs
and we have no right to dictate or interfer .
the reason we went into war with the usa against iraq and afghanistan was based on lies .
lets leave these countries alone and sort out our own problems first, how can we ever have the right to tell any country how to behave until we have achieved a true democracy in our own country .

reply to post by tom.farnhill

the alternative is leave these people alone and stop interfering in their regime , we may not like it but it is theirs
and we have no right to dictate or interfer .

I understand that but unfortunately it's not quite that simple.

Do we allow Iran to completely ignore the international community and allow it to develop nuclear weapon capability in direct contravention of The Non Proliferation Treaty to which it is signed up to?
Do we ignore the fact that nearly every single country in the Middle East feels threatened at the prosepect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons and fear that they will use that capability to bully their neighbours?

Whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not the fact is that Iran has proven links to various terrorist organisations who under certain circumstances would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against their perceived enemies.

Do we not have a moral responsibility to limit Iran's ability to threaten world security?

In addition do we just sit idly by and watch innocent people suffer at the hands of this repressive and at times brutal regime?

the reason we went into war with the usa against iraq and afghanistan was based on lies .

I agree with you entirely on that and those responsible for the lie should be tried in a court of law.

But again, did we not have a moral responsibility to remove Saddam or would you have preferred us to sit back and do nothing as thousands died at his hands?

As for Afghanistam, would you prefer that The Taliban regain control and then proceed to brutalise those that opposed them or impose their barbarous beleif system on millions that don't wish it?
Would you prefer The Taliban to spread it's reign into Pakistan - something that would undoubtedly ignite a major military confrontation with India - who could guess at the number of victims of that little spat?

Yes, both wars were justified with lies and through deceit - but they were necessary nonetheless.

Where we messed up monumentally was over staying our welcome and imposing 'our' beliefs and systems on them whilst showing little or no regard for local customs and wishes.
In fact we treat the local population with little more than contempt and disdain.

lets leave these countries alone and sort out our own problems first, how can we ever have the right to tell any country how to behave until we have achieved a true democracy in our own country .

I agree entirely with those sentiments - but we live in a real world, the here and now - and whether we like it or not if we simply pulled out of the region now we would leave behind a far bigger problem, and one that could quite easily come back to bite us in the arse.

As for true democracy in the UK, I assure you there are no bigger advocates than both myself and stumason.
A discussion for somewhere else I think.

Again I ask, at what point does there become a moral responsibility to involve 'ourselves' in the internal doings of another country?

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

WTF have these kids done to deserve that we in the west have the right to starve them?

You mean you haven't heard? They are building rockets under their desks at school to ship out to Hamas and Hezbollah.

reply to post by Freeborn


i hear you freeborn and i have to say that i don't have any real answers , the world is so screwed up now , i am so glad that i am comming to the end of my time here on earth , but i do despair for my children and grandchildren .
there are megalomaniacs on our dear planet that do not want peace unless they can control it .

do you think that these countries had any interest in us until we tried to control them ?

reply to post by Freeborn

Do we allow Iran to completely ignore the international community and allow it to develop nuclear weapon capability in direct contravention of The Non Proliferation Treaty to which it is signed up to? Do we ignore the fact that nearly every single country in the Middle East feels threatened at the prosepect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons and fear that they will use that capability to bully their neighbours?

There is no proof that Iran is breaking the NPT. In fact many intelligence agencies say that Iran isn't trying to get nukes.

Do we not have a moral responsibility to limit Iran's ability to threaten world security?

300 years of not starting a war shows they are no threat.

In addition do we just sit idly by and watch innocent people suffer at the hands of this repressive and at times brutal regime?

Why not? We have sit back for decades and watched Israels repressive and brutal regime make the Palestinians suffer why is it when it comes to Iran we rediscover morals?

Yes, both wars were justified with lies and through deceit - but they were necessary nonetheless.

No they were not. We had no right to go into these countries and remove their respective governments. In fact the countries are worst off now than they were before the invasions.

Again I ask, at what point does there become a moral responsibility to involve 'ourselves' in the internal doings of another country?

That point doesn't exist. No country has the right to involve itself in the internal affairs of another country.

reply to post by tom.farnhill


The world is indeed a pretty screwed up place - I look at my grandson and sometimes worry about what kind of future the world has in store for him.
But I think that's always been the case - people have been predicting doom and gloom and the breakdown of society for hundreds of years.

The world is a lot smaller place now and sure we've screwed things up - but they've had plenty long enough to try and right things for themselves and made an even worse job of it than we did.

Total isolationism simply isn't an option anymore.

reply to post by buster2010

There is no proof that Iran is breaking the NPT. In fact many intelligence agencies say that Iran isn't trying to get nukes.

There is no proof because they won't allow NPT investigators access to the relevant areas.
Many intelligence agencies say that Iran is trying to make nukes.
Guess it depends on who you put most faith in - granted it's hard to put any faith in any of them.
But given the circumstances and the evidence that is available to me I tend to think they are.

300 years of not starting a war shows they are no threat.

And over the last 30odd years how many terrorist organisations have they funded and directed?

As I said previously, many of Iran's Middle East neighbours fear that they will use any nuclear weapon capability to bully and cajole them.
Once they have that capability the mere possibility that they can use them will be enough to make them THE dominant power in the region.

Why not? We have sit back for decades and watched Israels repressive and brutal regime make the Palestinians suffer why is it when it comes to Iran we rediscover morals?

The hypocrisy and double standards that our 'leaders' use in the justification of their actions disgust me - that we take action in the Middle East but not in Africa where there are several regimes that are at least as equally brutal and repressive absolutely appalls me - but the answer isn't to sit back and let the suffering happen every where but to be more consistent in our attempts eliminate these brutalities.

I'm not necessarily advocating military intervention - but history teaches us that at times it is indeed the only option.

The Israel question is very complex.
I understand they feel threatened - but their treatment of The Palestinians is beyond excuse - and the US's, and to a lesser extent the UK's, apparent unequivical support of Israel simply compounds the problems.
The only thing I do know is that there are no easy solutions.

No they were not. We had no right to go into these countries and remove their respective governments.

So you would have preferred we sit back and allow the gassing of innocent Kurds to continue and we do nothing?
You would have been happy to allow the persecution of the Iraqi people in general to continue unabated and for thousands to die each year?

Or The Taliban to execute people for going to a party?
Or to deny women basic human rights?
Or to gain further influence and control in Pakistan?

In fact the countries are worst off now than they were before the invasions.

I'm sure I said that myself in one of my previous posts?
Perhaps you missed that?

It wasn't the wars themselves that were wrong - regrettable but not wrong.
It was the lies and deceit used to justify them.
And more importantly the complete arrogance and ineptitude 'we' showed in the aftermath.
'We' showed total indifference to local wishes and customs and sought to impose our own values on people who have no desire for them.
And in doing so we achieved nothing but alienating and pissing off every single faction in both countries.

That point doesn't exist. No country has the right to involve itself in the internal affairs of another country.

That's what Neville Chamberlain thought.

You may be happy with that - I'd much prefer to live in a society that whilst being compassionate and caring also sought to oppose brutality and oppression wherever it occurs - idealistic and naive I know.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
WTF have these kids done to deserve that we in the west have the right to starve them?

There is enough bread in Iran

But sanctions are putting pressure on Iranian people.

Those kids are going to be scientists.

They will make their country.

They will find a way for clean energy.

They will save their oil.

Peace

reply to post by Freeborn


Iran is not letting spies get into every single hole they want.

No other wise person will do.

And Iran has let those inspectors put cameras in their facilities.

But Iran is not letting them into their military research facility.

And if you think that Iran must do that.

So , think again.

So this War is to attack civilians the most !
Is it not against the geneva convention to attack civilians?
they are trying to starve people to death.
they are trying to get the civilians to fight a war for them,
and Die...

reply to post by mideast


I can certainly understand your sentiment. I could not imagine the US allowing foreign UN agents to inspect every corner of Area 51, or the Pentagon or DARPA research facilities for that matter.

But ultimately the problem is, if the Iranian officials do not open these doors themselves willingly, they will be blown open from aerial bombardment. But if they do open them, and by doing so reveal to the world there is no weaponization of nuclear materials, even if Israel still wanted to bomb an innocent Iran, they would be unable to do so. If Iran proves its innocence, the world will be unable to justify military aggression. If pride and distrust or even guilt prevents them from opening these doors, there is no doubt war will occur.

And no matter how bad this likely war will be for the entire world, it will be far worse for Iran. There are many who seem to have forgotten a very key point after watching the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They watched guerrilla warfare tactics have successes against the Western military powers. It was then perceived that Western military power was not as strong as had previously been suspected. But these militaries had been built to fight and win in conventional warfare. They were built to fight tanks, jets, platoons, and strategic targets. Conventional warfare, which in Iraq's case took only a few days to complete. And a war with Iran would be a conventional war. And you can be certain Iran's military power will be wiped out quickly. And even if an unlikely occupation follows, and guerrilla warfare is then used by the Iranian people, the Western powers now have over a decade of recent experience in dealing with this.

So the sum of this math problem is this. Either Iran opens its doors to UN "spies", or it opens its doors to brutal, evil, war. And then those UN "spies" can go and do whatever they want in Iran. Throw out the regime and put in a puppet government? Sure. Take the oil? Why not. Send armed soldiers on intrusive raids into civilian homes looking for remnants of the revolutionary guard, pointing their weapons at Mom, Dad, grandpa and your brother? Well they have done that sort of thing in every other country they have occupied in the last decade, so probably.

And the worse Irans initial retaliation, the worse the consequences for the Iranian people. If Iranian sleeper cells manage to hit the homelands of the UK and the USA and Canada, and any other western-allied population they might consider targeting, things will get very ugly.

If Iran is innocent of the charges, letting the UN inspector "spies" do as they please will save them from terrible consequences, both to the civilian population and to the leadership.

But they are not innocent, are they?

reply to post by spleenika


I can understand what you say ,too.

You say , Iran should open the doors in every hole.

The question is "will Israel or US do the same?"

No. Because they are the bullies and they tell others what to do nor not to do.

Iran has even opened it's doors in some military bases.

But they want all military bases and all the information.

+this is not about about being rational or reasonable.

It is about surrendering and obeying the bullies.

And no matter how bad this likely war will be for the entire world, it will be far worse for Iran

I really doubt that. This world is being run by justice. Whatever any people do against each other will get them somewhere.

The complexity is that you can not find where and when.

There are many who seem to have forgotten a very key point after watching the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They watched guerrilla warfare tactics have successes against the Western military powers. It was then perceived that Western military power was not as strong as had previously been suspected. But these militaries had been built to fight and win in conventional warfare. They were built to fight tanks, jets, platoons, and strategic targets. Conventional warfare, which in Iraq's case took only a few days to complete. And a war with Iran would be a conventional war. And you can be certain Iran's military power will be wiped out quickly. And even if an unlikely occupation follows, and guerrilla warfare is then used by the Iranian people, the Western powers now have over a decade of recent experience in dealing with this.

That is what your MSM is not telling you.

Iranian are not like Iraqi people. Those Iraqis invaded and fought Iran for greed. Iranian people are not greedy and they don't let other to be greedy ,too.

Iranian people taught Saddam and the whole world a lesson that they do not surrender and they do not invade and they do not let others invade.

Iranian people live by logic and this can not be taken by any mean.

So the sum of this math problem is this. Either Iran opens its doors to UN "spies", or it opens its doors to brutal, evil, war. And then those UN "spies" can go and do whatever they want in Iran. Throw out the regime and put in a puppet government? Sure. Take the oil? Why not. Send armed soldiers on intrusive raids into civilian homes looking for remnants of the revolutionary guard, pointing their weapons at Mom, Dad, grandpa and your brother? Well they have done that sort of thing in every other country they have occupied in the last decade, so probably.

And the worse Irans initial retaliation, the worse the consequences for the Iranian people. If Iranian sleeper cells manage to hit the homelands of the UK and the USA and Canada, and any other western-allied population they might consider targeting, things will get very ugly.

If Iran is innocent of the charges, letting the UN inspector "spies" do as they please will save them from terrible consequences, both to the civilian population and to the leadership.

But they are not innocent, are they?

I don't really know whether you meant this or not. But this is a total bullying conversation of western governments.

I have one thing to finish this.

"the era of being bully and cowboy is over. you better get civilized"

Originally posted by buddha
So this War is to attack civilians the most !
Is it not against the geneva convention to attack civilians?
they are trying to starve people to death.
they are trying to get the civilians to fight a war for them,
and Die...

Don't mind Iranian people much.

Just bully and give another sanction.

Just mind the beneficiary and the pride of another invasion.

We are not starving and you better find a way for rescuing your own sinking economy ship.

reply to post by synapsis


I do not agree with our stance regarding Iran. We should be more open to dialogue. As i have said before, internal change is inevitable in Iran simply due to demographics - over half the population is now under 30 and seriously not in agreement with hardline clerics setting edicts to live by!

However, i do have to point out that this is the point of economic sanctions. They are supposed to hit the people as that, in theory, leads to the "targetted" state being forced to back down. Therefore, i do not get why anyone would be surprised?

reply to post by Freeborn


When you say many Middle Eastern neighbours, do you mean Israel? Or, more to the point, Saudi Arabia (who the Iranian regime totally despises, as Wahabists).

The reality is, from a security perspective, we (the West) may actually be better off letting Iran loose on Saudi Arabia!

reply to post by Flavian

When you say many Middle Eastern neighbours, do you mean Israel? Or, more to the point, Saudi Arabia (who the Iranian regime totally despises, as Wahabists).

The vast majority of the Gulf States feel threatened by Iran, as do many of the predominantly Sunni nations in the region.

The Wahabists who control Saudi Arabia are as much a threat to global stability as the Twelver Shia's who govern Iran.
The hypocrisy and double standards in 'the west's' dealings with Saudi Arabia is inexcusable.

The reality is, from a security perspective, we (the West) may actually be better off letting Iran loose on Saudi Arabia!

I'd tend to agree with you if it was only the extremists and elites who would suffer - unfortunately as we both know it would be the ordinary people who would pay the heaviest price in such a conflict.
And if Iran had nuclear weapon capability who knows what the implications for all of us would be?

As irrational that it may seem to the vast majority of us we must factor in Iran's ingrained belief in the return of their Mahdi and the obsession of some within the current administration with manufacturing world events to force the Mahdi out of hiding.

For anyone interested here is an old article giving a perspective on the inner working of the religious leaders in Iran and a link to the very secretive but influential Hojjatieh Society.

www.meforum.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

ETA

Also worth reading up on are The Haghani Circle and one of it's founders Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who is still active today and is considered Ahmadinejad's 'spiritual advisor'.
Though he denies it Yazdi is widely rumoured to be a member of the Hojjatieh.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Freeborn

 

When you say many Middle Eastern neighbours, do you mean Israel? Or, more to the point, Saudi Arabia (who the Iranian regime totally despises, as Wahabists).

The reality is, from a security perspective, we (the West) may actually be better off letting Iran loose on Saudi Arabia!

Saudi is a name of and Arab tribe who were helped to get the dominion in Arabia. They were Wahhabi and that was why they were helped.

There was no Saudi Arabia before. There was an Arabia.

It is like we call America like US of Angelo-saxons.

And now they are paying back to those who helped them.

reply to post by mideast


Thanks for your reply Mideast. It is interesting that I agree with nearly everything you have said in your reply.

I think your identification of the bullying happening in this situation is correct. I also agree there is a double standard, that the US would not allow foreign agents to inspect their facilities as they now are demanding of Iran.

But the purpose of my post, was to present the reality of the situation. That even though there is bullying, double standards, and unrealistic demands being made, this situation and its consequences are real. Please allow me to make a simplified demonstration of how I view the situation.

Imagine Iran is a store owner. America and Israel enter the store armed with guns, and attempt to rob the store's cash register. If the store owner hands over his money, he will save his life. If he refuses to hand over the money, he will be killed, and America and Israel will empty the cash register and leave. The point is, in both of these outcomes, America and Israel end up with the cash registers money, but in only one outcome does the store owner live. That is an example of how I view the current situation. Is it worth the store owners life?

I would like to share with you my personal feelings on the situation. I don't like or trust Israel. I am displeased by the American alliance with Israel. I also don't like or trust Iran. I was very young when I first saw a video of Iranian children in school that were about the same age as me at the time, chanting "Death to America". I was shocked. In my school we did not chant "Death to Iran", or death to any country for that matter. It was then in my early youth I realized Iran was an enemy of my country.

Later in my life I came to know an Iranian man. He went by the name Moe, which was short for his name Mohammed. Moe was in a difficult time in his life, and my family took him in to live with us. I cared for this man, helped him, I took him to the hospital when he needed surgery, and I stayed with him there and helped him as he recovered. He was weak and I helped him eat, get out of his bed, and with other matters he could not take care of himself during this time. Despite my negative childhood impression of Iran, I came to accept this Iranian man as a part of my family.

I asked Moe once about the "Death to America" thing. He told me that it was true this was a slogan often heard in his home country. But he said it did not mean the literal death of America. That Iranian people did not truly wish to see Americans killed. The phrase he said, referred to the Iranian peoples disagreement with American middle eastern policy, and they wanted it to change. That "Death" simply meant change in this slogan. I accepted his explanation.

As time went on, I came to learn that Moe was a terrible person. He acted very kind and generous and hospitable. But he was a manipulator, a serial liar, and a thief. He cheated on his faithful girlfriend with prostitutes, and happily showed me his cell phone pictures of him doing this. As he got to know me better and trust me more, he revealed more of who he truly was to me. I was disgusted by his real self. I started to disbelieve everything he told me. Including his explanation for the death to america slogan. On the outside he at first appeared to be one of the most gentle and kind people I ever knew, but then he turned out to be one of the most awful people I have ever met.

The moral of my story here is Iran and Iranian people are just like countries all over the world. You will find good people in every country, and you will find bad people in every country. And in most of these countries the bad people tend to gravitate to positions of power, such as that of government.

You can tell me the Iranian people are not greedy, but that is an obvious lie. There are Iranians that are greedy, I knew one personally. But I would believe there are Iranians who are not greedy. If you say the whole population of any country are a certain way, you will be lying about it. The Iranian president said there are no homosexuals in Iran. That is a lie. Any generalization applied to a population of people is going to be a biased lie. Not everyone in America is fat. Not all British people have bad teeth. Not all Iraqi's are greedy. Generalizations are almost always inaccurate.

I think all war is wrong. War is a failure of human kind as a species whenever and wherever it occurs. A failure to resolve problems intelligently. A failure to overcome the evils of pride, vengeance, and greed. A failure to have compassion for the human victims. The earth was not created with borders, but humans put them there. Created by humans who wanted to rule the people and resources within the boundary.

And I say to anyone who actually has bothered to read this massive wall of text, thank you for reading.

do sanctions against countries actually ever work?

sanctions seem not to hit the governments normally so much as the lowest of a countries citizens. children and the poor are the ones hardest hit when it comes to food, jobs lost due to lack of materials to work with, and so on. i don't normally see it effecting those in charge who are the cause of said sanctions.

then there are cases such as Japan in world war II, where the sanctioning of things like raw materials, scrap metal and oil, put in place due to japans trying to take over china, WAS the REASONING USED TO DECLARE WAR ON THE US, and BRITISH interests, and the move to SECURE RESOURCES. seems that sanctioning backfired rather spectacularly.

also as many pointed out sanctions seemed to have no effect on Cuba other then denying people in the states of Cuban cigars.

are there ANY cases where sanctions actually worked?