sugar ovens
blood inside
Try reading the whole post...Imagine living in a country that has no Walmart or Amazon... I truly cannot conceive surviving without them.
Try reading the whole post...Imagine living in a country that has no Walmart or Amazon... I truly cannot conceive surviving without them.
I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.Try reading the whole post...
Lol what not once in this thread did I 'warmonger', if anything I just called u out on your unfunniness. Get over yourself lol, "I hope others do too" bruh lmao this is a Pokemon website goofy assbut im noting how many times u try to war monger up this thread, and i hope others do too
I dont know where the hell you got all that from my single, neutral question, but okay. This is a textbook example of a strawman argument, only that its less of an argument than a violent, incoherent rant.idk why anyone thinks sanctions are a step down, theyre just another tat for a tit, they starve iranian ppl and do nothing to threaten the regime. And since we all know war is driven by economics, this is just myopathy masquerading as stance to take itt. at that point why not argue that the US has actually 'restored deterrence' by killing Suleimai? lol
Target > Wal-Mart all dayImagine living in a country that has no Walmart or Amazon... I truly cannot conceive surviving without them.
I don't mention iraq at all, if iraq wants us gone then out we go. I simply think its moronic to say OH NO trump is escalating the situation by sanctioning iran! Not a chance, when you look at a scale from deploy the troops to never mention country again applying sanctions is much closer to one sidewhats a m.e country supposed to do? say: "oh yeah mr. us, id be happy to be part of your empire and give u all my natural resources, i dont need sovereignty as long as I have U.S bases inside my territory', like it or not the US is violating the sovereignty of Iraq by not withdrawing and playing like theyre on some higher level than other states, such that the us doesn't have to be accountable to international law or norms.
The US pressures its allies to fall in line with its sanctions. Between us and our allies we control a great deal of modern medicine. Sanctions on consumer goods and whatnot, sure that's not the same seriousness... but sanctions on food and medicine (and the US is horrifically famous for doing medicine to pile on pressure) has incredibly inhumane outcomes.I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.
But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
imo the problem with this line of thinking is that it plays right into the kubuki theatre of American foreign policy. Our military killed a state representative acting in diplomatic capacity, and the outfall of that is somehow being used to justify the supposedly lesser evil of sanctions. But why does the evil of assassination somehow pave the way for a further evil of sanctions? That is what I mean when I say such a 'de-escalation' discourse is kabuki theatrics. Unlike the Iranian missile strikes on U.S bases filled w deployed troops that were on high alert and suffered 0 casualties, these sanctions are going to have lasting effect and mainly on non-combatant civilians.I don't mention iraq at all, if iraq wants us gone then out we go. I simply think its moronic to say OH NO trump is escalating the situation by sanctioning iran! Not a chance, when you look at a scale from deploy the troops to never mention country again applying sanctions is much closer to one side
Yeah, this is so fucked up my buddy from Iran even told me he thinks that the Iranian Government (which he hates) and Trump (who he hates even more now) had to be in on this together because it's really the two governments that win-- the people who lose. Tin foil hat, I don't think agree-- but can't blame him considering the winners and losers.The hard truth here is, every step along the way of this 'escalation-de-escalation' spectacle, both the Iranian regime and the Trump administration have perhaps benefitted mightily from the supposed tension. Khomeini's #2 gets capped, helping to coup-proof the regime, meanwhile it's not clear what the long term effect of this will be for the Trump administration, but probably his base loves it and something to talk about besides impeachment in an election year. In any case stock market leaps for war, American and Iranian citizens get screwed. I could talk about how Russia and Iran move closer while continental Europe and America drift apart, but it is tangential geopolitics.
Economic sanctions force Iran to be isolated and they don't have the necessary infrastructure to product at the same time medicines, weapons, bridges, computers, etc.I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.
But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
I haven't seen such an ignorant comment before, jesus. There's something called economic sanctions, which is something against international law according to the UN. I do know in first hand how it affects because we do have economic sanctions here in my country too, it just forces us to be isolated and not have the necessary infrastructure to produce what we need. And no, we don't want amazon, walmart, iphones or tesla trucks, we rather have medicine and food as this is more important for our people to survive. thanks.I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.
But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
Economic sanctions are not illegal, I have no clue where you got that idea but you’re wrong. As already mentioned, if your survival depends so much on good trade relations with one country, your situation is fragile and bound for eventual disaster. Yes it’s not going to be easy to solve but it should be taken as a wake up call.I haven't seen such an ignorant comment before, jesus. There's something called economic sanctions, which is something against international law according to the UN. I do know in first hand how it affects because we do have economic sanctions here in my country too, it just forces us to be isolated and not have the necessary infrastructure to produce what we need.
Economic sanctions are not considered legal if they are imposed in a unilateral way with the only intetion to have a "regime change". Do I have to mention the blockade on Cuba, Yemen and Venezuela? because It has not only demonstrated to not work for a "regime change" but rather demonstrated to fall heavily on the poorest people in society, causing deaths through food and medicine shortages, so they could amount to crimes against humanity under international law. Of course, I understand that you wouldn't even know they affect medicine and food when you're not the one living in a country where economic sanctions are imposed by force and against the will of the citizens. I'll stop reading you but I'd suggest you to think a bit harder before making such a comment next time, it shows how ignorant you are jaja.Economic sanctions are not illegal, I have no clue where you got that idea but you’re wrong. As already mentioned, if your survival depends so much on good trade relations with one country, your situation is fragile and bound for eventual disaster. Yes it’s not going to be easy to solve but it should be taken as a wake up call.
And yeah people talking about medicine or whatever here... sanctions haven’t targeted those. Work a bit harder before typing.
They're not illegal period.Economic sanctions are not considered legal if they are imposed in a unilateral way with the only intetion to have a "regime change". Do I have to mention the blockade on Cuba, Yemen and Venezuela? because It has not only demonstrated to not work for a "regime change" but rather demonstrated to fall heavily on the poorest people in society, causing deaths through food and medicine shortages, so they could amount to crimes against humanity under international law. Of course, I understand that you wouldn't even know they affect medicine and food when you're not the one living in a country where economic sanctions are imposed by force and against the will of the citizens. I'll stop reading you but I'd suggest you to think a bit harder before making such a comment next time, it shows how ignorant you are jaja.
The only thing I could describe as colossally idiotic is Obama and Secretary Kerry paying the Iranians billions as more or less of a bribe, only for them to expand their terror arsenal. Republicans want the use of deterrents put back in place (because paying off terrorists is an awful idea as history shows us), as in if Iran crosses a red line, they get punished in so that theyre less likely to do it again. They attacked and set fire to our embassy, I would think thats a valid excuse. No one wants war, and deterrents does not mean war, you can stop strawmanning the right's argument. Not to mention, Soleimani's terror plans were released in a classified setting to members of Congress and the Senate alike, on top of the fact that this attack has been planned for months now, it happened now because of what they did to the embassy.Let's not forget that the democrats were very much complicit in the first Iraq War initially. That's why you're seeing all these "fool me once" articles floating around. These political lies are so beyond obvious at this point.
Now if only the Republicans who said they wanted Trump in office to avoid war would kindly stop being colossal fucking idiots for 5 seconds out of this 4 year span...
too bad the US said fuck a sovereign nation. the only positive about this really is that the US government made more explicit than ever before that their little mission in iraq is entirely imperialist in nature and in no way concerned with the well-being of the iraqi people. too bad most of the dems are just gonna ignore this because theyre just as complicit as the republicans in perpetuating the neo-imperialist style of US foreign policyF. I’m actually going to be somewhat pleased with the results of this if it forces the US to finally remove troops from Iraq, forced or otherwise. We have no reason to be there militarily - it’s just a massive waste of money.
Basically every part of this reply is an ahistorical revision of events peddled by chicken hawks as war propaganda. It would almost be interesting to see how effective it was if it didn’t have negative real life impacts both in the region and globally.The only thing I could describe as colossally idiotic is Obama and Secretary Kerry paying the Iranians billions as more or less of a bribe, only for them to expand their terror arsenal. Republicans want the use of deterrents put back in place (because paying off terrorists is an awful idea as history shows us), as in if Iran crosses a red line, they get punished in so that theyre less likely to do it again. They attacked and set fire to our embassy, I would think thats a valid excuse. No one wants war, and deterrents does not mean war, you can stop strawmanning the right's argument. Not to mention, Soleimani's terror plans were released in a classified setting to members of Congress and the Senate alike, on top of the fact that this attack has been planned for months now, it happened now because of what they did to the embassy.
Im shitting myself. I literally just said no one wants war (which includes myself), and the right is pushing for deterrents. Maybe you need to learn to read first before you bash my post as war propaganda. The Iranian government should not have attacked our embassy, and it shouldnt be torturing or killing its own citizens (take the airline crash that Iran just admitted to accidentally shooting down that Dems and the media have been pinning on Trump, stupidest illogical shit I have ever heard). Additionally, you want to talk about revisionist history? Try talking about the people protesting as we speak against the Iranian regime and the 1500 of them killed last year alone because their government is batshit crazy and guilty of countless human rights abuses. Cover that, then come back to me. Dumbass.Basically every part of this reply is an ahistorical revision of events peddled by chicken hawks as war propaganda. It would almost be interesting to see how effective it was if it didn’t have negative real life impacts both in the region and globally.
Lol, I’m talking about referring to the Iranian nuclear deal as, “bribing the Iranians for billions of dollars,” which is literal chicken hawk propaganda and ignores historical context like the fact it was Iran’s money in the first place. Also you immediately follow that by saying that paying terrorists is a bad idea, implying Iran’s government is a terrorist which again, chicken hawk propaganda, and again ignores the historical context by which the current Iranian regime came into power (literally the United States overthrowing their democratically elected government, then that government getting overthrown by this one because it was corrupt and exploited its own people). Don’t get me wrong, the current Iranian government is awful and garbage, but we historically have made governments worse with our interference (do you ever wonder why there are so many asylum seekers from Central America?). But it isn’t even the top supplier of terror in the area, s/o Saudi Arabia, good thing we’re giving them nuclear secrets after they killed a US resident in Turkey.Im shitting myself. I literally just said no one wants war (which includes myself), and the right is pushing for deterrents. Maybe you need to learn to read first before you bash my post as war propaganda. The Iranian government should not have attacked our embassy, and it shouldnt be torturing or killing its own citizens (take the airline crash that Iran just admitted to accidentally shooting down that Dems and the media have been pinning on Trump, stupidest illogical shit I have ever heard). Additionally, you want to talk about revisionist history? Try talking about the people protesting as we speak against the Iranian regime and the 1500 of them killed last year alone because their government is batshit crazy and guilty of countless human rights abuses. Cover that, then come back to me. Dumbass.