Donald Trump

[JDOD]

I suspect they'll be another north korea. A lot of hype and propaganda, some squirrely demos, bully threats, and just psycho enough to keep everyone on edge.

At least there'll be dialouge with them and some idea of what's actually going on. OK, so the supreme leader has an imaginary friend - but at least he doesn't deify himself like the Kim family!

 

[ibleedburgundy]

Crippling a country with sanctions is never gonna solve anything really is it. You're just gonna make the people there a) poor and b) hate you. Sanctions should be used as a short term emergency measure - not long term policy.

I agree with this. A lot of Americans seem to think Sanctions are a desired result unto themselves - that the economic punishment is the end game. They don't realize that the sanctions provide basically zero benefit to the US: Sanctions certainly don't stop Iran from sponsoring terrorism or enriching uranium. Sanctions are a card to be played, nothing more. If they truly do result as a trade for preventing Iran from having nuclear bombs, that will have been an excellent trade-off for the US and it's allies.

 

[DM60]

I agree with this. A lot of Americans seem to think Sanctions are a desired result unto themselves - that the economic punishment is the end game. They don't realize that the sanctions provide basically zero benefit to the US: Sanctions certainly don't stop Iran from sponsoring terrorism or enriching uranium. Sanctions are a card to be played, nothing more. If they truly do result as a trade for preventing Iran from having nuclear bombs, that will have been an excellent trade-off for the US and it's allies.

So what does one do? No sanctions, no military, do like they did in WWII and hope the problem goes away? I think that was tried once, it didn't work.

 

[ibleedburgundy]

So what does one do? No sanctions, no military,

No, you impose sanctions until you get something of significant value out of it. In this case you remove Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. If Iran breaks the rules you snap sanctions back into place. An invasion should only be a last resort.

do like they did in WWII and hope the problem goes away? I think that was tried once, it didn't work.

For the love of science dude, every situation isn't comparable to WWII. Iran isn't Germany. Not remotely close. They aren't going to take over Europe, nor would they nuke anyone unless they want to die very quickly - which would be the inevitable result and they know it. Iran is belligerent, against human rights, anti-semitic, and radical, but do you truly believe they are suicidal? I don't.

Do you have any idea how many people would die if we went to war with them? Iraq's military was in shambles and we lost 4500 of our troops and 100,000+ Iraqis died. Iraq has a population of roughly 33M. Iran has a population of 77M, a way more advanced military, and their mountainous landscapes would provide much better cover for an insurgency.

A military option against Iran would be a truly terrible thing - for tens of thousands of our troops and their loved ones. I don't think you take it completely off the table, but to toss the idea of war around so casually as if the diplomatic option was so beneath our dignity that it would be worth it......I don't see the logic.

 

[DM60]

For the love of science dude, every situation isn't comparable to WWII. Iran isn't Germany. Not remotely close. They aren't going to take over Europe, nor would they nuke anyone unless they want to die very quickly - which would be the inevitable result and they know it. Iran is belligerent, against human rights, anti-semitic, and radical, but do you truly believe they are suicidal? I don't.

Do you have any idea how many people would die if we went to war with them? Iraq's military was in shambles and we lost 4500 of our troops and 100,000+ Iraqis died. Iraq has a population of roughly 33M. Iran has a population of 77M, a way more advanced military, and their mountainous landscapes would provide much better cover for an insurgency.

A military option against Iran would be a truly terrible thing - for tens of thousands of our troops and their loved ones. I don't think you take it completely off the table, but to toss the idea of war around so casually as if the diplomatic option was so beneath our dignity that it would be worth it......I don't see the logic.

Not everything is comparable to WWII, I agree, but human nature is pretty much the same since humanity.

I think war is the last resort, even if you win in that region, you lose. It just is what it is and I am not sure if it can be fixed and even what "fixed" would even look like for that region.

From what I have gathered, the opposition to lifting the sanctions is that more money will flow into the country for them to conduct more "external" operations. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt do not want Iran to gain power in the region. We know Israel doesn't want it. Therefore many people want to see the sanctions continue to at least keep money out of their hands.

On the nuclear front, they are going to develop a weapon as fast as they can. Then the it will hit the fan and it will be far worse IMO than some action now. But I will be honest, if I had the power to take action against Iran, I am not so sure I would do it. But I think lifting sanctions now only benefit the Iranians and Russians (they get the money to sell the technology). Don't think Putin isn't watching all of this and has a plan of his own.

 

[MrUserNameIV]

Yeah...but that assumes that everyone living in sanctioned countries is stupid and incapable of seeing the root causes.

Do you think in Cuba...for the last 60 years...all the people living there thought Castro and communism was a great thing...and it was only our sanctions that cause them problems?

People need to rise up and fight for their lives...though, granted, I know it's not easy when there is a dictator running the country and controlling the military and infrastructure. Anyone objecting is quickly dealt with.
Castro removed one shitty regime and replaced it with his own failed communist regime.

I'm sure there will be a lot of people in Cuba privately celebrating when the two Castros kick.

Well sure, probably no more in other countries than in ours. I guarantee, if China put sanctions on us, there would be a large swath of the population who would rally behind whoever was in office with the external threat.

Now, if you look and see what most dictatorships have in common, is this fear of external threats. So, if you want to give dictators more propaganda to work with, doing things like sanctions or saber rattling is the perfect way to do it. Dictators usually get their power out of fear, and so if you put the population into a state of fear (economic ruin causes fear), then you'll ensure that the small group of people who believe everything the dictator says grows quite a bit. It's a lot more effective of a way to stay in power as a dictator: Rather than just ruling with an iron fist, they use external threats to put people into fear and then pose as the good guy, keeping them safe from what's out there.