Sanctions on countries dealing with Iran

[Captdon]

We shouldn't be in the business of sanctions in the first place

Why not? If it serves our interests we should do it. It's as simple as that.

[Cotton1]

We shouldn't be in the business of sanctions in the first place

I agree. We should threaten them with things much worse and if they still don't cry "uncle" make good on it

[pjohns]

Okay, so better than Bush I & II, Clinton, and Obama.

"Decades" would mean at least two (not necessarily any more); so Bush I would not be included in this.

Yes, it is. Material considerations should be one of the primary factors governing US foreign policy, since material prosperity is probably one of the only things that actually unites the country in its interests. If a particular instance of foreign policy cannot be justified on material grounds, then it is probably a bad policy.

Pure materialism is the stuff of which Marxism is formed.

I believe that the Founders had a bit higher ideals...

I don't see "moral leadership" in there anywhere [in the US Constitution].

In the 236 years since the Constitution was written (234 since it took effect), the US has become a beacon to the world (or, as Ronald Reagan put it, "a shining city upon a hill").

Sanctions are an attempt to destabilize another country's economy. If another country was levying destabilizing sanctions against the USA, how would you interpret it?

If another country wished to place sanctions upon the US, I would have no problem with it. I really think that we would get by--and do so just fine.

Which means they're not our enemy in any technical or legal sense of the word. Thankfully.

A "technical" or "legal" sense is quite beside the point.

China and the US have had normalized relations for decades.

Sadly, this is true--beginning with Richard Nixon...

An "enemy" of the US is a legal designation that can only exist in the context of a war as traditionally understood.

That is certainly...well, quite a leap.

We are now in the age of cyber-warfare--something that, of course, did not exist in the eighteenth century--and China is reportedly engaged in precisely that. (I urge you, please, to read this enlightening article: https://www.securityweek.com/united-...-kind-cyberwar)

Actually, it sounds like I don't want to die needlessly in a nuclear Armageddon.

"[N]uclear Armageddon" is a scare term--one designed to instill the belief that a nuclear war (if one were even feasible--which it is not) would mark the end of life on this planet, as we now know it.

Of course, that is simply absurd.

And the nascent development of low-yield nuclear weapons may make that vision even more ridiculous...

So, according to your own analogy, that would make China... Nazi Germany?

It is a logical flaw--and a major one, at that--to take an analogy further than it was intended.

Yet, in some senses, China is very much like Nazi Germany. It has, for instance, internment camps. (The chief difference, of course, is that these are for "dissidents"--rather than merely based upon ethnicity.)

This is a very good article, from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.9f3573219a89

Nuclear weapons changed everything, and with good reason. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy human civilization as we know it.

Previously addressed.

(Oh, by the way, there will doubtless be a WIII.

And a WWIV.

And a WWV...)

Why? What benefit did the country derive from it? We know what it cost us: Upsetting all our most important allies, worsening our relationship with Russia and China (very dangerous thing to do in the nuclear age), putting the US and Iran back on a war footing (also very dangerous), constricting global oil supplies. For what?

Why would I mind our "worsening our relationship" with Russia and China," and doing so, also, with a country that describes us as "The Great Satan," and regularly chants "Death to America"?

I really think that it is a very good thing to be "worsening our relationship" with such countries. (And yes, I am quite serious.)

So what does "victory" entail?

I would suggest that we give Iran an ultimatum--and thoroughly mean it!

They may either (1) give the US unfettered access to inspect their country for nuclear weapons--this means anytime, anywhere; or (2) we will bomb them (nuclear bombs would be unnecessary).

There would simply be no Option #3...

[alexa]

Sometimes a country--especially the USA--must take moral leadership...

Then why did we elect Trump?

[Cotton1]

Then why did we elect Trump?

Because Kenyas favorite Muslim couldnt run a 3rd term and thick ankled Nazi Hillary didn't seem a viable alternative?

[The Xl]

Why not? If it serves our interests we should do it. It's as simple as that.

Whose interests does it serve? Certainly not the average United States civilian.

[The Xl]

I agree. We should threaten them with things much worse and if they still don't cry "uncle" make good on it

For what purpose?

[donttread]

Even better than Reagan?



Far from it, I would argue.



How does putting sanctions on Iran and its commercial partners benefit ordinary Americans? What do we get out of it? Anything tangible or measurable, perhaps?



Good. Sanctions are basically acts of war. They should only be used as a last result. They are also ineffective at achieving their goals. Oh, and they're morally repugnant forms of collective punishment.



This is so wrong. And on so many levels.

First of all, in order for another nation-state to qualify as an "enemy" of the US, there must be a state of war between them. Thankfully, the US has never declared war on China, and China has never declared war on the US. Therefore, there is no constitutional basis for categorizing them as an enemy.

Secondly, how can China be our "enemy" (let alone a major one) when they're one of our largest trading partners and creditors? Since when do enemies maintain gigantic commercial ties to one another?

Thirdly, if China is a "major enemy" of the US, then it's a situation that MUST be rectified IMMEDIATELY. In case you forget, China is a nuclear power. Unless we're talking about a clear, existential threat to the country, treating China as an "enemy" should be completely off the table for OBVIOUS reasons.



I think what's wrong was Trump's rash decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, which all our most important allies supported, which Iran was in compliance with, and which put the US and Iran on a path to normalized, peaceful relations, which the American people would have benefited greatly from.



They are shills for Israel and Saudi Arabia, trying to maneuver the US into a disastrous war with Iran. It seems painfully obvious to me.

It would appear that running up debt is not a factor which prevents a president from being deemed great.

[pjohns]

Then why did we elect Trump [if we wish for this country to exert moral leadership]?

That is a fair question. It deserves a thoughtful answer.

Donald Trump is certainly no paragon of virtue--to put it mildly. (And I am not referring here to his alleged affairs, but to his style.)

Nonetheless, one must remember that we were faced with a realistic choice of only Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton; and neither was (or is) essentially virtuous.

A better question might be why Donald Trump was victorious in the primaries (and caucuses). (For the record, I was in favor of Ted Cruz.)

My own view, in this regard, is that a great many people simply desired an outsider--someone who would be the "disruptor" that Trump claimed he would be.

I hope that I have answered adequately.

[Captdon]

Then why did we elect Trump?

To provide moral leadership in the worls instead of shiitng his pants like Obana always did.