Whenever web dev comes up, we got people saying it's fad-driven development where a new framework comes out every week. Those people have never done real native development. React and Angular have been the solid stable bedrock of web frontend for ten years, and the churn is nothing compared to Windows, OSX, Android, and iOS UI dev.
Another article in the category of "I am an able-bodied anglophone silicon valley man and I think X should not exist because it doesn't serve ME". Ignoring and ignorant that there are 8 billion people out there, of varying ethnic and linguistic background, with different ableness, of different education and literacy levels.
There's no space for doubts at all. If it starts with $ then it's a scalar variable name. It's a very basic rule in Perl. Like any Perl tutorial would mention it within a few paragraphs from the start.
Smokey, this is not 'Nam! This is <Perl>, there are rules!
'$' guarantees a scalar. Then it either alphanumeric id, or a single non-alphanumeric symbol. And the latter means you deal with a 'special' var which with 100% certainty has a documentation entry.
I tried using Google translate's voiceover, it seems fine? I don't have an iPhone so I can't compare with Siri. It is obviously a nonsensical string of ten characters, but all hangeul characters should be pronouncible.
I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.
Their authoritarian militaristic government that doesn't care for human rights.
If you apply the same standard to the North Korean citizens, that they should not be expected to "take that risk", they your country's sanctions are pure collective punishment with no strategic value. You just tortured people for fun.
> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries...
"You all" is a weird way of putting it. I don't support my government levying sanctions on these countries, but I have zero power to change it.
It's funny, as the gist author points out that he doesn't support the actions of the Islamic Republic, and has no power to change it because it's minority rule by a theocratic dictatorship.
But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.
I think sanctions are largely pointless if their stated goal is to get citizens to rise up and change their governments. Asking people to risk their lives (when you're not risking anything at all) is an awful thing to do, and this sort of thing isn't likely to work.
But it's probably not really that; the idea is to choke the economies of these countries so they can't do whatever Bad Thing the sanction-leviers are worried about (like developing nuclear weapons). How effective sanctions are at achieving that goal is an exercise left to the reader. And even if they are effective, there's a lot of collateral damage that hurts people who have no say in the matter.
> But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.
Not saying Obama’s foreign policy was perfect, but he did do the Iran nuclear deal which lifted some sanctions, and started the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Like so many other things, these were immediately undone by his successor…
Obama acknowledging that the US overthrew an Iranian democracy for the benefit of oil companies definitely helped and could have ushered in a new era of understanding. Sadly, America then decided to elect someone with a toddler’s understanding of history and geopolitics which destroyed all that opportunity for a generation.
If you are referring to the Mosadegh story, that “apology” started with Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright trying to appease the current regime in Iran. Sadly, the “apology” itself is meddling with the historical facts. The Mosadegh government was no more or no less democratic than any other Prime Minister in that era. He had prorogued the parliament and waged a war against the Constitution and tried to elevate himself over the law and depose the ruling monarch. The Soviets and their affiliates and comrades on the ground supported the move (hoping to remove him next and extend the Bolshevik revolution to the Persian Gulf,) and the US and many Iranians did not want him to succeed.
In any case facts of the story are so brazenly changed in the apology’s telling of the story that regardless of which side you are on, in and of itself is a political interference against the will of the Iranian people. Please also note that the golden era of Iranian prosperity was the decade and a half when he was removed from power by the monarch.
Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic. Canada had its parliament prorogued for the first 4 months of this year yet I didn't see calls for violent US-backed regime change and political suppression like there was under the American puppet Shah. Same with deposing a monarch (getting rid of monarchy is "anti-democratic" now?).
More information on the "Iranian golden age of prosperity" you mentioned:
>During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".
> Proroguing in parliaments is nothing new or anti-democratic.
He prorogued the parliament and was calling for a referendum to overthrow the monarchy against the Constitution. He was terminated by the monarch per Constitution, but he would not leave the post which resulted in uprising from both sides.
> During that time two monarchs — Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent. The Pahlavi dynasty has sometimes been described as a "royal dictatorship",[1] or "one-man rule".
Yeah if you read biased and debunked media and the Mullah supporters and comrades[1] (which is the source of Wokipedia) during the Cold War era, and by the way both sides conspired to get rid of the monarch for different reasons, you might believe such propaganda. If you'd talk to the actual industrious people who experienced it, you might get a very different perspective. Double digit annual GDP growth, #1 is number of international students in the US (not per capita, absolute.) So yes, golden era, indisputably.
[1] Interestingly, we see the same Marxist-Islamist alliance has now hit the West.
Strange that the mighty USSR broke down 10 years after that.
In retrospect, the astute mind would recognize the two may have just been interrelated. In fact, one may have been part of the plan to accomplish the other.
Are you seriously claiming that SAVAK wasn't a thing, or that it didn't employ torture? Or are you saying that the "golden era" justified such measures?
If you want to really argue this, you need to bring out specific claims one by one, as many have been either fake or overblown, or misattributed to SAVAK (acknowledged by the terrorists who taken over and are in charge now.) But in general, I do not believe it was anything out of the ordinary of the statecraft employed by the US or Britain in the Cold War era or arguably even the Bush era. In fact, post hoc, it is obvious they were too soft, as they released all these terrorists in the wild and let the country taken over. It is a failure of SAVAK and the security apparatus.
So yes, I would unequivocally argue to any extent the intelligence apparatus was actually operating, not only golden era objectively justifies those measures, but even for lots of the troublemakers themselves, turns out letting criminals loose to take over the country actually makes things worse; many of such Marxist-terrorists who claimed they were mistreated under the old regime were treated much much worse, or lost their lives, during the first years of the Mullah regime.
Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms. Besides Israel, I'm not sure any country has continuity between recent administrations.
> Long term foreign relationships cannot be built on top of four year presidential terms.
Yes indeed, I agree.
Although: long term foreign relationships certainly can be un-built on top of four year presidential terms. See: current US president and rest-of-the-world.
It's very rare that international relations get poisoned for generations without some ongoing work from both involved parties. Populations tend to forget things on the timeline of a decade or so.
The US can rebuild most of what they destroyed. It's gone now, and some of it they were already on the process of losing and can't get back. But no country is beyond reconstruction.
As someone who grew up in Russia in the 90s, that McDonald's actually did wonders! The problem is that y'all figured that if you help people who say that they are "democrats" maintain control over the country, it'll all work out, somehow. What actually happened is that many of those people were grifters, some others idealistic incompetents who thought they had all the answers after reading Ayn Rand. On the whole, the people - who were very enthusiastic about the changes in late 80s - by mid-90s felt like they've been robbed, quite rightly so (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia for some examples), by people now firmly associated with the West and with words such as "liberal". This is the big reason why Western-style liberal democracy very quickly became a marginalized minority political opinion in Russia, and why the likes of Putin could easily take power by promising people that they'll fix the mess.
Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Even to this day. Even after what Israel and US did.
Netanyahu has been saying Iran in minutes away from building nuclear weapons since early 2010s.
Never mind those facts. Let's say they are building weapons. What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Why is the US funding terrorist groups, but Iran cannot? Just cos they're the big bad boogeyman? Don't you think it'd be better to normalise relationship with them so that they become friendly? So that even if they are building weapons, they wouldn't use it against us because they're allies?
> What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot?
Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc.
The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.
Hi I'm Kurdish. I'm 100% aware, heck my mother still cries in front of me remembein some of the horrors she saw. I'm also aware that we, the Kurds, have arguably benefited the most from that war. But that does not negate the fact that the US lied about Saddam having WMDs.
A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17]
Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents.
Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds.
Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq
I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative).
The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different.
And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion.
So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it.
You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development.
Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads.
By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion.
In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures.
So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion.
You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war.
Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid.
We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims.
2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles".
3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process.
4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims.
5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion.
My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale.
Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously.
The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate.
I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it.
Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.
This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted.
1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring.
2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation.
3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion.
4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden.
Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons.
I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war.
I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled).
You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence.
Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false
> "Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons."
False. The Bush administration's case centered on mobile biological weapons labs, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, and claims of active production facilities. Colin Powell's UN presentation focused heavily on alleged bio-weapons and nuclear programs. Chemical weapons were a minor part of the overall WMD narrative.
> "I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war."
UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix reported in March 2003 - just before invasion - that inspectors found NO evidence of active WMD programs. UNSCOM had already dismantled Iraq's major chemical production facilities by 1998. The "Iraqi manipulations" were about concealing historical records of past programs, not hiding active ones.
> "I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile"
You absolutely moved goalposts. You started claiming these finds proved WMDs existed, then shifted to "chemical weapons are WMDs," then "UN violations justified invasion." Past use in the 1980s was already known and irrelevant to 2003 invasion claims about active programs.
???
> "5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence."
Absurd. Many were empty, corroded, or non-functional 1980s remnants. Countries with active nuclear arsenals, operational chemical weapons, and biological programs had vastly greater WMD capabilities than scattered degraded shells.
> "Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false"
The truth is that no active WMD programs were found (as per every source you have mentioned, even), which is what the invasion was predicated on. Your own source explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale".
Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
> Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
I could continue to counter your arguments which are either cherrypicked or false, and the fact you blame me for moving goal posts, when you had done so yourself. But I really can only admire your continued ability to defend your mind against new information which such vigor. I am also stopping here
"Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons."
That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.
Is the US government is so much more stable than Iran's?
The US has been directly or indirectly involved in all conflict in the middle east in the past few decades, and the instability in the region is due to the US's failed foreign policy.
Maybe the US should stop pretending they know what they're doing. The US can't keep domestic terrorism at bay, why are they trying in a foreign setting?
Yeah, I’ll take my chances with the global hegemon that has reigned over a historically unprecedented global peace. (Although I'd prefer we all did like South Africa and decomission our arsenals)
And yeah, the US should get out of the Middle East - we need to stop pretending is that sharia-law is compatible with western liberal democracies*.
* This IMO is the socio-cultural reason for the Middle East's instability following the US’s interventions - and why similar interventions had more success elsewhere.
Because they don't want foreign opponents at a time when they're having trouble keeping their house in order?
Also, speaking frankly, there's an implications that people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it's a Muslim country. This is false. It would be far palatable for Saudi Arabia or the UAE to develop nuclear arms because even though neither country is 'Christian' or 'democratic', they are at least allies.
> So unstable, theocratic, dictatorships under sharia-law [1] should have access to nuclear weapons? Because it's "fair"?
Ironically, this statement could apply to Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since 1998 and yet has never used them. How strange! According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Iran having a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East and the world a much safer place - if Ukraine had not disposed of their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, there would be no war happening right now! Possession of nuclear weapons is the only way for a country to guarantee its own sovereignty, which is something America and its coalition do not want for Iran - they want a weak puppet like the Shah who will let Exxonmobil come in and take all their oil revenue for themselves.
Aside from the fact Pakistan is not a theocratic dicatorship, lets deal with your actual accusation:
> According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Thanks for telling me what I and every other westerner thinks!
As you have clearly stated, we can therefore easily conclude that all muslim countries (and by extension their people) are equivalent and all must therefore share the explicit ideological goal (enshrined in their constitution) to "fulfil the ideological mission of jihad" and hopes for "the downfall of all other [non-islamic] governments". [1]
Just to be clear: all muslim countries (and people) are equivalent = obvious sarcasm. To believe that I'd have to be about as braindead as someone who believes that all citizens of western countries share the same values, goals, and ideologies as each other (and their governments).
Tell me why Putin hasn't used nuclear weapons on Ukraine, a vulnerable non-nuclear nation that they are at war with? Is there something uniquely dangerous about Muslims in possession of nuclear weapons that you'd like to tell the class?
To be clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship with Sharia Law and Sharia courts in effect for decades, and Islam as their state religion (something that isn't even true of Iran, a country of great religious diversity that's not reflected in Western propaganda). They are as much a theocracy as Saudi Arabia, yet their nuclear weapons aren't an issue because they play patty-cake with Western interests and have no oil reserves for Exxonmobil to salivate over.
Putin uses nuclear weapons to keep the rest of the world cowering while he launches military invasions of neighboring countries. It's a perfect example of why we don't want Iran to have nukes - considering the jihad and chaos their government is already exporting to the region, think how they'd act if they were "untouchable".
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post like that.
Also, please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Ignore the rest of what wrote, and preemptively call facts silly. I'm sure you're more familiar with the matter than IAEA. Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence director initially said they were not building nuclear weapons, until she changed her tune after Trump probably barked at her.
For power, uranium needs to be 3-5% enrichment, medical applications about 20%, and weapons will be 95%. The IAEA confirmed in May 2025 that Iran's had a stockpile of over 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. That's not enrichment for power. They had a stockpile at 20% in 2015 when the JCPOA was made, that was also well over what was needed for power.
> enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups
And yet we allow israel to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups. At least in iran's defense, they aren't engaging in genocide like israel is.
> For the life of me I can't understand why it was undone.
Zionist domination of america. We're always told china this or russia that, but we don't waste trillions of dollars fighting for china or russia.
Sanctions are not designed to coerce a populace into rebellion, in order to facilitate regime change.
Sanctions are designed to prevent an enemy government from profiting from our western economy. Sanctions are designed to bring hostile entities to the negotiation table. Sanctions curtail the worst behaviors of enemy nations because the sanctions deny those enemies money. Money is power. Little money = little power.
For the most part, sanctions are designed to be "something" in the infamous "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!!!1!" mantra. They rarely achieve any of the goals that you enumerate, disproportionately inconveniencing regular citizens - government actors have the means and the know-how to work around them. But mob justice demands an eye for an eye, which is to say, someone must be made to suffer - and sanctions provide a way to do that, even if the people actually suffering are rarely morally responsible.
Well, it sounds like you should rise up against your government in violent revolution, then! After all, that's what's expected of Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan people when the West destroys their countries with sanctions. Get to it!
That's an insane take, to the point I thought you're being sarcastic.
He's not asking Americans to overthrow their government. He's not even asking Americans to lift the sanctions (as he said explicitly). In fact, he's not asking for anything, just recollecting his experiences.
More importantly, you're comparing asking a (poor) country citizens to overthrow their own government with a (rich, western) country... lifting an economic policy that doesn't even work?
It might be insane take, but that is the take of the US Government.
That is the policy and a frequent GOP talking point.
Sanctions -> Pressure on the people -> People are miserable -> People rise up and revolt against their Government -> Government is replaced with Rainbows and Unicorns.
> Either fight of the theocratic lunatics that benefit of your taxes and work, then you and all your countrymen will be welcomed into the modern world, or at least move to a place where your work no longer benefits theocratic lunatics.
Thanks! I will steal this quote and use it in response to Americans very soon
Uh. The US is currently increasingly subject to an theocratic autocracy, as Trump and his cabal of Christian nationalists terrorize our country. By your logic, we are not a part of the modern world.
the US is currently ruled by a known pedophile rapist and still people feel comfortable looking down at other places. We shouldnt be part of the modern world!
> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government
That's a total non-sequitor.
GP stated that he will personally face prison time for going against the laws of his country.
Why would anyone risk jail time for you? For your countrymen? Why don't you risk jail time for some other country?
> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.
I think the argument is that you deprive belligerent companies from the resources they need to attack and harm others. The suffering their citizens endure is unfortunate, but why should Americans take the blame when Kim Jong Un is so obviously culpable?
This is extremely reductive. Just as OP doesn’t support Russia in its war against Ukraine, and just as many US citizens don’t support America’s actions abroad, there aren’t any countries that teach their kids to chant “death to America” for the fun of it. Not to mention the fact that there are options that aren’t “economic oppression” or “war.”
Why would "for the fun of it" be a prerequisite for it to be bad..?
If someone shouts "death to <my name>" from across the street, I take it _very_ seriously.
I fully understand the history between Iran and the US, but you you can't have suicidal empathy with an enemy state that trains its people to want you dead.
If you visit Iran (or pretty much anywhere) as an American you'll have zero issues with the people. Here [1] is a thread of various people visiting Iran, and it's 100% typical. The average Iranian has no problems with an American than anybody else - they have a problem with the American government. And the two are obviously two extremely different things.
The one piece of advice that shouldn't need to be said, but does, is that when traveling to Rome you need to do as the Romans do. You probably would have problems if e.g. you bring a homosexual partner along and make that relationship apparent in public, are a woman who tries go without a hijab, etc. Be respectful of the culture, and people will be respectful of you - regardless of where you happen to come from.
And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_. The state represents its people, but it is not _all of_ the people. I always see people derailing these discussions in this manner when it's always patently obvious that we aren't conflating the two.
But you are specifically conflating the two. Not only in your implication that Iranians, normal Iranians - children even, want Americans dead, but in your defense of sanctions. Sanctions have no meaningful affect on countries - as in the political leadership and military, but can have a substantially negative impact on the people within that country. In many ways they are even more barbaric than war, because at least in war there is a viable goal and you are targeting the state and its military. Civilians are unfortunate 'collateral damage', not the target.
With sanctions you just inflict suffering on the people for no realistic reason or goal. The idea it'll drive people to overthrow their government and align themselves with the people inflicting mass suffering on them is just so inexorably stupid. It's not even illogical - it is anti-logical. I expect that one day it will be looked upon in the same way that today we might look back on drawing and quartering people as a punishment.
Any warfare hurts civilians. And there's no kinetic warfare that is guaranteed to not hit civilians. In fact we can observe how impossible that is all throughout the world, today.
I'm fairly sure given the choice, civilians would rather their country be sanctioned than bombed. Obviously the best option is no conflict at all, but that's utopian.
The Lancet just released a study on this exact question. [1] From 1971 to 2021, "unilateral, economic, and US sanctions" were associated with some 564,258 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5, who are most sensitive to disruptions in healthcare or food. That's 1,544 deaths per day - for 30 years.
By contrast as of August 31st 2025, the UN has assessed a total of 14,116 civilian deaths in Ukraine [2], about 10 per day, in one of the largest land wars in quite some time, and one where military casualties are certainly in the millions. War will always be with us - it's simply the final stage of irreconcilable differences. But I think sanctions will go down as one of those things people look back at wondering how we could ever do that to each other. Again I think the parallel with random forms of torture before execution are apt. One can support the death penalty and be completely disgusted by drawing and quartering. It's just unnecessary sadism and cruelty that serves no purpose.
As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not really a flip flop as both statements can be, and probably were, true.
So why was Iran so close to a nuclear weapon in the first place? What happened is that after years of enriching at a normal level Iran suffered yet another attack from the US/Israel in 2021 that caused significant damage to their nuclear facilities. [2] Following this they increased enrichment to 60%, which is just below weapons grade, to make a point that they were entirely capable of making a nuclear weapon, but had made a conscious decision not to.
Following the latest US/Israel attacks on them, I think it's fairly certain that they will develop a nuke, if not only because it's increasingly obviously the only way they can stop the endless US/Israel attacks. Ultimately, you're not going to be able to stop a country full of brilliant individuals from building a nuke if they want it. It seems likely that Iran was negotiating in good faith, and then we literally launched an invasion on them mid-negotiation. What's the point of negotiating?
And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways.
I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't want us supporting regimes that are diametrically opposed to our own ways of life. And sanctions are the way to do this.
The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment.
Their goal was (and perhaps if they're delusional - still is) to maintain hegemonic control over the entire world. The main motivation for things like attacking Iran is 'projecting force.' It's supposed to work to intimidate other countries into deference and compliance without having to actually get involved in a battle with them. Basically mimicking how school bullies work.
So you're looking for a reasonable explanation based on superficial pretexts, but there is none. The same is true of Iraq. It's not like we really thought there were WMD. But it was simply an opportunity to project power and keep the military industrial complex churning.
>And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_
The US toppled it's democratically elected leader in the 50s, installed a brutal "king" dictator, and when they finally overthrew him it armed their neighborhood Iraq to wage war on them killing millions, then enforced global sanctions to it (causing tremendous damage to its economy and operation), and still meddles in the region.
Them saying some slogans like that is not even a blip on the radar, compared to the murderous shit the US has done to them for profit and spite.
First off I'm not American, just to be clear. But I don't see the US playing the victim. They're involved in a conflict.
Iranians are playing victims, and they are, but they're victims to their own government's actions, being the foremost funder of anti-west terrorism and sentiment.
If they want things to change, I'd look at the closer threat -- their theocratic government.
I don't think this needs much "teaching." We overthrew their secular democracy in 1953 and installed an extremely unpopular autocratic monarchy. They were then overthrown in a "real" revolution in 1979 which is when they became an Islamic Republic. Since then we've spent decades trying to overthrow their government, actively assassinating their leaders and scientists, bombing their country, providing material support to Israel to regularly go batshit over there and so on. And I haven't even touched on sanctions. We're not exactly coming off as the good guys here.
Beyond this, it's a very poor analogy because the overwhelming majority of sanctions would be a war crime as they intentionally target civilians with no military value.
I am fully aware of the US' history in the middle east, as well Europe's role and my own country within Europe. But that doesn't mean we should accept this kind of rhetoric from enemy states.
If you go down this rabbit hole of "historical rights", where does it end? The truth it it never ends. You go far enough back and we're all the assholes.
So all we can do is move forward and respond to threats like these the best we can.
This doesn't require any lengthy history. We're still killing Iranians regularly and pretty much arbitrarily, as well as backing Israel doing the same in a borderline psychotic fashion. And you're here fear mongering about them saying 'Death to America' which is pretty much the equivalent of waving a stick at somebody after they just burnt down your house with your family in it.
And Iran has waged proxy wars on Americans, civilians and military personnel alike, for four decades.
The countries are at war. It's just not kinetic, ie. with troops on the battlefield. That is reality. I know it sucks, but you can't expect the US to just let the threat be. It's not like US is alone in wanting to suppress Iran's threat anyway; you can blame most European countries for aiding in that suppression.
I won't get into the religious underpinnings but they are significant. This isn't resolved by the US just letting Iran be.
Iran has not been attacking US civilians. This is nonsense. The best you're going to come up with there is the Iran hostage crisis. And what was that? That was when Iranian students stormed and occupied the US embassy, almost 50 years ago, demanding that the US extradite Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - the tyrant that the US had installed in Iran after overthrowing their government, who was then granted asylum after he was overthrown and fled to the US following events like the Jaleh Square massacre. [1]
In the end 0 civilians were harmed and it led to the Algiers Accords [1] under which its chief provision is that the US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs. Besides the US obviously endlessly violating that, we also violated another section of the treaty (related to the settlement of litigation) almost immediately after it was signed.
No they haven't. A proxy war is what we have going on between the US and Russia in Ukraine. You instead have autonomous groups, largely affiliated primarily by religion (like Hezbollah), that receive support from Iran. It's more akin to the situation with Saudi Arabia where extremists of their flavor of Islam, including Al Qaeda, often find material and personnel support. For instance 15 of the 19 attackers from 9/11 were Saudi.
And I doubt you'd call Al Qaeda a 'Saudi proxy' or 9/11 a Saudi-US proxy war. It's nonsensical.
This is an ultra simplistic take. Iran does not like the role the US has in propping up Israel, entirely rational and understandable. Israel may not be recognized by our government as a "sworn enemy" but it's done infinitely more damage to the US and US citizens than Iran has. The only reason they're not sanctioned is because one of the ways Israel attacks the US is through bribery (AIPAC) and blackmail (Epstein).
Israel will be dissolved as the older generations die off. At that point we can fully remove ourselves from the Middle East. It's not our oil anyway, let's focus on other energy sources that don't require propping up synthetic states and causing worldwide terror.
Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies.
Over 30 years that turns countries into harmless (to the West) backwater shitholes.
The consequences towards the local populations are just a side-effect (sometimes wanted, sometimes not).
You cannot expect people outside of your dicatorship to prioritize your well being over their own safety. It's on you to fix your country. If you won't - people will isolate you to keep their countries safe.
This. The point is, and always was, to exert economic pressure.
Some sanctions aim at military capabilities directly - but most just aim to throw a wrench into a country's economy overall. Which does hurt the population - but it also hurts a country's capabilities, which is the goal.
If North Korea wasn't sanctioned to shit, it would have had the resources to build not dozens but hundreds of ICBMs. This is undesirable, so North Korea remains sanctioned to shit.
This is the right answer, and it's sad to see it so far down the list.
This is the precise realpolitik of international sanctions, it's just not spoken out loud that often.
Don't believe me, some random commenter. Listen to the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College explain it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o
I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.
Dress it up however you like, the fact remains that countries can choose to not provide goods and services to whomever they want for whatever reason they want.
There's absolutely no moral obligation on an individual in any country to defy these laws and risk prison time - if they want change they can petition, vote and protest.
Beyond that the West is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us (and therefore had sanctions placed on them) - that responsibility lies solely with the people and governments of sanctioned nations. We shouldn't be forced into supporting those who seek to destroy us based on HuMAnITaRiaN grounds.
The word "cooperate" carries a lot of weight in your reasoning. Could you give some examples?
One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism, regime change operations and so on and the rather long line of failed states in its wake, and draw the conclusion that we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power' regardless of whether it 'dresses itself up' to be 'cooperative' while it engages in these activities or not.
For example, not respecting copyright laws (China), not participating in other sanctions (India), or intentionally destroying diplomatic relations (South Africa). It could also be more serious things like declarations of war, or long standing bad relations.
> One could also flip your argument and consider the many decades of US narcoterrorism
I'd agree with you here, I'm speaking purely of diplomatic / trade related activities (i.e. tariffs, sanctions, etc.) - imo putting boots on the ground or funding insurrections are an escalation that
1. no longer respects the autonomy of a country/people
2. are equivalent to military action
There's of course still a lot of grey-zones but hopefully it clarifies my position.
> we ought to actually not submit to this 'world power'
Again I agree, WE (as private citizens) ought not to, however diplomacy and trade are careful games played between larger entities (corporations, governments, etc.). But on the flip side it also doesn't mean we have to go against everything the government does (i.e. it isn't inherently evil).
The tricky line (as in this case) is when the actions of those entities can have an effect on you (the private citizen) like jail time.
China is a member of WIPO, so that's mostly something the US does to trample on the UN. Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them because the US thinks they should, instead of leveraging the UN sanctions system, which India adheres to? Same thing there. The US dislikes diplomacy and international institutions that treat states as equals, and prefers overtly or covertly hostile unilateral actions.
I'm not sure what you mean by the South Africa example.
I'm also not so sure it's a tricky line. Civil disobedience is something everyone should consider as a means of political action.
China's issue isn't so much the laws / treaties they've agreed to on paper. The issue more the actual implementation and enforcement of said rules.
> Why should India change its policies around sanctions and start implementing them
I'm not saying India has to, they're perfectly within their rights to ignore requests from the US, but neither does the US have to tolerate that (as they have been) - everyone is free to tariff / sanction as much as anyone else (not withstanding other agreements, but the same argument applies to those). In this way, everyone is free to pursue their own actions and ends. And as such, the US and India aren't forced to trade / cooperate outside of their own mutual benefit (i.e. if trade stops being beneficial to the US/India, they should stop).
This is how I mean each country is responsible for it's own outcomes, don't want to deal with the US? Fine. Just don't expect handouts and cooperation from US entities.
What I'm trying to express is that it's a 2 way street and both parties can walk along it as much as they want - and not a moral issue. I'm not saying there's no consequences, merely that it is OK for a country to pursue actions that (it believes) are in it's own favour.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the South Africa example
Completely fair, I've been diving into SA politics at the moment so it's just at the top of my mind. But there's been a long standing degradation in relations, to the point where recently the SA ambassador to the US was rejected by the US because of some very undiplomatic comments he refused to retract - followed by SA not replacing the ambassador for something like 6 months. Meaning there was no formal point of contact between the 2 countries, independent groups and non-ruling political parties tried to bridge the gap but there's only so much they could do. Another similar example is how while every other country tried to negotiate with Trump about his tariffs, SA refused (or forgot) to.
WIPO and it's relevant treaties provide a range of mechanisms for dispute resolution through diplomacy. The issue is that the US does not engage in diplomacy.
I think most scholars of international law would disagree on the legality of unilateral economic sanctions, since they are likely to amount to interventions and as such violate sovereignty, and, of course, human rights of the people affected. You also seem to think of US sanctions as if they were in a vacuum and not a preamble to aircraft carriers, narcoterrorism and other JSOC responsibilities, and possibly nuclear warheads, or less commonly, explicitly genocidal actions.
Right, so you meant that South Africa disagreeing with the ongoing genocide in Palestine in which the US is a main offender amounts to sabotage of diplomatic relations. As for refusing to "negotiate [...] about tariffs", why would anyone? If I punch you in the face, shoot a kid in the face, and then tell you to sit down by a table and negotiate how much you should pay me for that service, would you sit down and act as if I'm a reasonable, rational actor?
> The west is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with us
This US-centric mindset is so disgusting and emblematic of the narcissism of the west. The country has established itself as the most potent force for violence and economic abuse in the world.
You can easily take "the west" out of that sentence and replace it with any other country and it's still fair.
E.g. China sanctions a country then "China is not responsible for any deaths caused by governments that refuse to cooperate with them"
It's entirely the responsibility of each government to ensure the welfare of its own citizens. Anything more is purely goodwill. Anything less is treason.
You're just coping because the US/west is the predominant power.
My country should prioritize its own people first, second, third, fourth, fifth....and all other people a distant last, if at all. It sucks that the people in the US don't benefit as much as they could from being world hegemon, but that doesn't mean they would be better off if the US was in a lesser position in international relations.
That presumes some kind of just system imprisoning the husband. In fact the US pursues its power and wealth, supporting dictatorships and undermining democracies to the degree it believes doings so benefits its special interests and geopolitical calculus. Even to the point instituting famine against children in horrific genocide which is happening today.
Yet US hegemony is collapsing. It is simply running out of the money and power necessary to be a racketeer that cynically calls itself world police.
One would think the finger pointing should go towards the shitty governments causing trouble and pain for their own citizens, but somehow you've managed to find an angle to blame the West.
It is truly an unthankful job being the saviour of the entire world.
So without sanctions or a military strike, how will a nuclear program will evaporate? spontaneously? Or do you think that nuclear blackmail like the NK case is something that should be accepted
Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. From that perspective, sanctions aren’t meant as “torture for fun,” (as you put it) but as a way of creating pressure so governments change their behavior without having to resort to war. They’re basically a tool to raise the cost of bad actions and make it more attractive to adjust course.
At the same time, sanctions also work in other ways: they punish governments that break international norms, they send a signal to the world about what’s considered unacceptable, and they reaffirm shared values. That’s why they’re still used despite the harsh effects on ordinary people. They aren’t a perfect solution, but in Western thinking their role is to combine pressure, deterrence and symbolism, rather than just collective punishment for its own sake.
The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like.
So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.
I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.)
Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc.
I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran.
But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit.
Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.
>It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit.
They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens
I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.
That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.
It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation
I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind.
Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision.
UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries.
But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place".
This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.
The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action. If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it.
However, sanctions do have a symbolic value. And I also can't think of anything else short of military action to express displeasure.
Both are true. Less access to materials, components, IP, and skilled labor all diminish a country's war fighting ability. There aren't unlimited funds you can take from citizens, and money you do take has effects on your labor force and talent pool.
Would Russia perhaps have already conquered Ukraine without sanctions? Would Iran have destroyed Israel by now without sanctions? Would NK have become a nuclear power much earlier, and have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons today, were it not for sanctions?
I don't know the answers to those questions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "yes".
> Iran is not the only example in which sanctions have resulted in unintended consequences. Since 1970, unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. have achieved foreign policy goals in just about 13% of cases, according to one study. A recent Congressional Research report evaluating U.S. sanctions in Venezuela found that sanctions “exacerbated an ongoing economic and humanitarian crisis caused by government mismanagement and corruption that has promoted 7.7 million Venezuelans to flee.” U.S. sanctions also exacerbated humanitarian crises in North Korea, reported UNICEF, putting 60,000 vulnerable children at risk of starvation due to limited humanitarian aid.
Russia lost (in a real sense), when their blitzkrieg of Kiev failed. From that point on, it’s just how much they turn the crank on the meat grinder that is trench warfare. It’s the nature of the bet that is inherent in Blitzkrieg. Ukraine/Russia is about who is going to lose more after that, not who can win. No one can win anymore.
Sanctions or lack thereof definitely impacts quality of life, but Putin put everything on a war economy footing pretty quickly anyway, and in that environment (especially in Russia), it’s suffering all the way down. And Russia excels at Suffering. Russia has oil too, and plenty of minerals, so if anything I expect by now they’re just getting stronger (economically), barring Ukraine wrecking their shit from time to time with a well placed drone strike.
Iran/Israel is an interesting question, but near as I can tell, Iran doesn’t really want to destroy Israel. They just want to make them as miserable as possible, and show they can ‘do harm’ to them when they need to prop up domestic support among the hardliners.
Israel provides a good scapegoat for the Iranian leadership.
With Israel gone, who is the Ayatollah going to use as the big bad? The Great Satan (USA) isn’t as tractable a target when they don’t have a designated ‘local’ they can go after, and if Iran actually meaningfully hurt the US (nuked the White House?), Iran is glass regardless of how otherwise strong they are.
NK got sanctions because they love playing the crazy-dude-with-a-gun-that-just-wants-a-handout, which is also why they eventually got nukes. They might have gotten nukes a little faster without sanctions, but sanctions definitely gave the hardliners huge leverage in the country. Hard to be friendly with the west (as a civilian!) when the west is literally openly starving the country, even if the leadership of your country is egging them on eh?
Near as I can tell, the USSR fell because of jeans and rock and roll. So yes, I think the ‘good guy’ sanctions BS is ultimately self defeating.
It can work if someone is either a) in a tenuous economic position, and b) the ‘sanctioningish’ behavior is not existential.
But any good authoritarian would rather throw their entire population under the bus ‘for the greater good’ than give in on something important for them…
And countries know how to deal with being at war (generally), even if it’s a weird only-semi-economic one.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think one aspect of sanctions that you are missing a bit is that they stifle growth (especially long-term) by forcing the victim to waste ressources on unwanted/inefficient industries or convoluted procurement.
Basically, you are hurting your own economy (non negligibly in the EU-Russia case for example!) to make sure that you outgrow the sanctioned opponent, making any future conflict more favorable for yourself.
There is a lot of evidence that this aspect works pretty well; even if you can sidestep the sanctions with middle-men or substitute local industry, this always comes with additional friction/costs (just consider German synth fuel industry during WW2-- that was an insane amount of ressources that could've gone into planes or tanks or somesuch instead).
For an example of sanctions directly effecting diplomatic outcomes, just consider Jordan over the Gulf wars: They stayed neutral during the first one (which Bush did NOT like), got sanctioned (without western citizens even noticing too much), suffered a lot from that, then during the second Iraq war they basically cooperated with the US (grudgingly!).
I think it is difficult to find many clear examples for this because sanctions typically mostly work as a threat, and being put in place is a kind of failure mode for them already.
How can Russia be economically stronger under sanctions? Before the war they were able to manufacture some goods (Volkswagen had a couple of factories. I think Unilever was making some washers/ dryers). This is all replaced by manufacturing of some weapons (which proven themselves so shitty in the war that no outside buyers want to buy them).
Russia went from selling their oil on the world market at competitive prices to selling to mostly 2 customers at heavily discounted prices. And Russia is going to use barter now because of financial sanctions on Russian oil buyers.
All Russian currency reserves are frozen, and the interest these reserves generate are given to Ukraine to buy weapons.
How is Russia economically better now than before Feb 2022?
It depends entirely on what you mean by ‘strength’, and ‘better’. Russia is ramping up its military industrial complex like no one’s business, for instance.
Manufacturing in general, actually.
Something which had essentially collapsed previously. Also, mining and other resource extraction - they’re necessarily rebuilding domestic production and becoming more independent.
Well, yeah, sure, they are building lots of shitty weapons. Meanwhile they cannot take over an adversary a third of its size.
About resource extraction - the West stopped giving Russia extraction technology. Which means Russia is coasting on what they had up to 2022. Meaning in a few years Russia will do what it did in the 70s: over-extract its most productive fields. To see how that movie ended read Gaidar's Collapse of an Empire.
Russia has had to sell oil at a steep discount, which has cut into their revenue significantly. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been frozen/seized that can't be used to fund the war effort. Modern war is not just "beans and bullets”, and Russia pays upwards of 10 times the price for key components it needs for missiles, aviation, UAVs, tanks, artillery, air defense, etc. as well as quality manufacturing equipment needed.
Russian industry is operating at only 81% capacity, largely due to labor shortages, which make sense considering that about 1% of its labor force join the military every other month. Russia is losing tank barrels, artillery barrels, and infantry fighting vehicles more than 10 times faster than it can manufacture new ones. It will likely never be able to obtain a third rotary forge, required for barrel manufacture, to expand its capacity. It has almost entirely cannibalized its old, defunct Soviet era stock. They are being kept afloat by China, NK, and Iran, but with a much-reduced capacity, and often much lower quality. For example, Russia relies on China for 70-80% of its microchips, but China is dumping defective microchips on them with a 40% failure rate.
Sanctions have absolutely had significant, direct, measurable impacts on Russia’s ability to wage war and sustain war.
I’m not saying the sanctions haven’t hurt, rather that when the war was at its decisive point (the first few days) they did not exist/were immaterial. Now they’re just doing more damage in an already damaging (and unwinnable) situation.
The biggest sanctions were adopted after the war started (and then the West kept piling up new sanctions every few months).
Are you suggesting the West should have put these harsh sanctions before the war? My recollection of Dec 2021 and Jan/Feb 2022 were that the West was trying to avoid inciting the crazy Russian dictator: Biden had two tele conferences with Putin in December, there were three meetings in Jan (OSCE - Russia, NATO - Russia, Lavrov - Blinken)
And I do not think the situation is unwinnable for the West (it is probably unwinnable for Ukraine as it will not be able to get its territory back). Russia is getting weaker with every man it loses, every tank is destroyed, every young man/woman who decides to leave. I would be surprised if Western Europe will want to do business with Russia for a generation - which basically makes Russia China's vassal for the same period of time.
Russia will be in bad shape for decades. The West will be just fine.
The West should have put boots on the ground in Ukraine before Russia invaded. That was the one thing that would have prevented the war. Hell, they should have had EU peacekeepers along the line of contact back in 2015.
The kind of sanctions that we've seen since then seem to be mostly about appearances, with EU trying to pretend that it "really cares" despite this epic failure of foreign policy.
I have seen no serious analysis saying that Russia losing the war has been basically inevitable since the first few weeks of the war. Russia is fighting a war of attrition now and has been for most of the war. Most analysis still assess Russia can attrite it's way to victory. Sanctions are important because even if Putin is willing to throw wave after wave of his own men to the slaughter (a million Russian casualties and counting), if they run out of vehicles or artillery barrels, they are kind of screwed.
Russia is hollowing out its male population which was already under severe strain.
Even if Russia ‘wins’ the Ukraine war (takes all Ukrainian territory), it’s even more fucked than when it started demographically.
It’s also spent pretty much all of it’s currency reserves and destroyed it’s normal economy destroying all that ‘new’ land in a way it will be incredibly hostile to productive use for a generation+. Not counting insurgencies and rebellions.
The well is solidly poisoned, regardless of who ends up owning it.
The USSR fell because its economic model didn't work and was a society steered by corrupt principles. Jeans and rock and roll "envy" was just a symptom. After having seen the effect of communism/russianism on post-soviet countries I'd rather take a nuclear bomb, it's better in the long term.
Sanctions work but it depends what you are min-maxing because obviously some sanctions may hurt your own country/block.
> The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action.
Counterpoint: South Africa.
> If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it.
Isn't South Africa the exception? There have been sanctions on many more countries who have not changed at all, or even doubled down on bad behavior as a result.
I can certainly understand, as a matter of foreign policy, not wanting our companies to be propping up or supplying such regimes, but I don't really get how anyone can think that sanctions are effective at promoting change.
Sanctions from individuals. The US did the opposite, and supported South Africa no matter what. Just like Israel - In both ways. Israel supported South Africa, and the US supported Israel. The dramatic sanctions against US citizens for refusing to buy from Israel and endorsing that people not buy from Israel are meant to prevent such a horrible thing as the fall of Apartheid from ever happening again.
This comment is mistaken. Many countries, including Japan from 1964, and eventually the US and UK, sanctioned SA officially. I doubt whether any boycott from individual US citizens had a serious economic effect compared to this.
As an russians who moved abroad I think sanctions positively affect Puttin so far. Because, he got a lot what he wanted but couldn't get without sanctions:
- russian companies replaced majority of international companies. Many of IT companies growed 20-40% year by year
- sanctions locked money inside of the country which help to build new everything
- sanctions made boost of internal culture and patriotism. Which also increased popularity of government and reduced any alternative options.
And many more similar examples. Sanctions will hurt Russia in long term but not now. Because good sanctions requires to understand the country culture + execute only that hurt countries, which didn't do western countries.
Honestly, their effect is diminished. After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much, after initial shock.
Trying to use sanctions against another major power isn't guaranteed to work as they can take the hit and pivot to internal industry(which happened), or trading with other major powers that do not sanction them(China).
Or some countries get around sanctions - like buying Russian gas/petroleum products through India - in a way this bypasses sanctions making them worthless.
Is it better than doing nothing? yes, of course. But Russia unfortunately is a major power - just due to sheer access to natural resources - and you can't just bully it into submission with weak sanctions that some EU countries ignore(petroleum case).
> After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much, after initial shock.
That sounds like a positive, though: if Russia's advance into Ukraine has been slowed by sanctions, but everyday Russians aren't affected too much, I'd consider that a huge win. We shouldn't be punishing regular people for the actions of a their dictatorship government that they can't control.
Problem is that ever since the sanctions from EU, our prices of EVERYTHING has increased by 3-6x. We are in an economic crisis, thanks to EU's sanctions.
Russia has had billions in oil money banked. It's mostly gone now.
It's working all right. These things take decades. Look at North Korea (first few years they grew faster than South Korea, and they had the more wealthy parts). Now their GDP per capita is around 600-1700 USD vs 33 000 USD in South Korea.
Russia has had to sell oil at a steep discount, which has cut into their revenue significantly. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been frozen/seized that can't be used to fund the war effort. Modern war is not just "beans and bullets”, and Russia pays upwards of 10 times the price for key components it needs for missiles, aviation, UAVs, tanks, artillery, air defense, etc. as well as quality manufacturing equipment needed.
Russian industry is operating at only 81% capacity, largely due to labor shortages, which make sense considering that about 1% of its labor force join the military every other month. Russia is losing tank barrels, artillery barrels, and infantry fighting vehicles more than 10 times faster than it can manufacture new ones. It will likely never be able to obtain a third rotary forge, required for barrel manufacture, to expand its capacity. It has almost entirely cannibalized its old, defunct Soviet era stock. They are being kept afloat by China, NK, and Iran, but with a much-reduced capacity, and often much lower quality. For example, Russia relies on China for 70-80% of its microchips, but China is dumping defective microchips on them with a 40% failure rate.
Sanctions have absolutely had significant, direct, measurable impacts on Russia’s ability to wage war and sustain war. As for regular people, it is hard to think it hasn't affected then, given that last year inflation was 9%, interest rates are 21%, and disposable income is down 20-30%. That feels like a lot of belt tightening.
> After speaking with Russians living in there, day to day life hasn't been affected that much
Did you speak with folks from Moscow or St Petersburg or from different regions? Life in the top 2 cities is kept as normal as possible at all costs; that is part of the Putin's approach to handling the elites (you can keep living your comfortable lives as long as you stay out of politics).
But elsewhere the quality of life took a big hit. Even in second tier cities. At least that is what I am hearing. My 2c.
I have friends and relatives living in various regions in central and south Russia, and most of them don't feel like their quality of life took a big hit. The main frustrations that I hear are from drone attacks and associated inconveniences, not so much anything economic.
Anecdotally I have also heard that many factory towns are booming because the factories are re-opened or expanded to fulfill all those military orders.
>Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good.
I would say it is a bit more realpolitik than that. An "Evil" leader doesn't care about the common good, but all leaders need subordinates to carry out their orders, security forces to carry out their rules, etc. Sanctions are meant to put pressure on all those people. So either A; the leader changes their actions so as not to risk losing the people that turn their will into action, or B; those subordinates put someone else in charge that will play ball.
Not trading with a despot can just be not trading with a despot. It doesn't have to have an agenda.
If I personally choose to boycott a sneaker brand because I have a firm belief that they run sweatshops in a foreign country, is that collective punishment? No, I'm just not supporting someone who doesn't align with my values. Even if, as a side effect, the workers won't be getting the pittance that they would have gotten from my purchase.
Well, that's too bad. Lifting sanctions opens up opportunities for non-alligned government spies and saboteurs. I recall there is a problem with remote workers from the DPRK employed by Western companies. These citizens are already collectively punished by their governments. I used to live in such a country until the US managed to lead on the USSR into bankrupting themselves. Thank you, America! Thank you Ronald Reagan for all the USSR jokes! Thank you Michael Gorbachev for letting it slide!
So your proposal is that we do business with all these countries so they have thriving economies with more money they can invest into their government and military?
It's the occasionally given justification for embargos on Cuba, Sanctions on North Korea, etc. Whether you believe it's the real reason is a different question.
This the exact same as the email from the post, but the other way around. Either both normal Iranians are responsible for arming Russians and normal Americans are responsible for sanctions, or neither are. In general I don’t like blaming people for the actions of their government.
The US is a democracy, so Americans are, at least on a collective level, responsible for the actions of their government, though not on an individual level of course.
Iran is a theocratic autocracy. Only the autocrat and his supporters bear any significant responsibility for the actions of the government there.
In theory sure but in practice not really and to say regular citizens have a direct say in specific geopolitical decisions is absurd, given how unpopular many recent decisions have been.
A democratic constitutional republic. Often simply referred to as "a democracy" as a shorthand.
The key distinguishing factor being that in a democracy powers are derived from the consent of the governed, as opposed to other forms of government (including some "constitutional republics") which do not allow open democratic elections.
Citation needed. Where did you get that additional term in front of it? Which United States founding document suggests that?
Democratic Republic, just like People's Republic, is actually a euphemism for communism.
What you are describing is "representative government" and "self government" not necessarily democracy. The will of the people is an abstract concept that is, depending on the issue, not always accurately measurable by equally weighted vote of a subset of the people that are enfranchised.
I just want to add one angle I don't think the other comments covered well - it is obvious that nobody pushing the propaganda angle ("encouraging them to rise up") is serious because the track record is far too clear. I can't think of an instance where sanctions have ever triggered a political change and if they do then it is rarer than a country's elites changing direction due to internal political concerns. Nobody believes sanctions will cause political change in their targets. It is almost unthinkable that they would. What could that even look like? If someone has the power to threaten a country then they don't need to actually levy the sanctions to get compliance. Countries only get sanctioned if the sanctions aren't enough pressure to cause change.
The point of sanctions is to cripple the middle and lower classes, destroying a country's ability to fund a military. That actually makes it less likely for a dictatorship to get overthrown - the middle class is too poor to organise which is desirable from the West's perspective. Dictatorships are really bad at waging war effectively, they struggle to handle the complex logistics and are easier to distract and threaten.
And frankly; we're talking about something kicked off by 60s US and UK, that map in that wiki article could be mistaken for one of the British Empire. Nothing's impossible but it'll take more than a wiki article to give me confidence that sanctions were the primary political force operative here or that the apartheid system was actually the thing at issue. I would chalk it up as unusual circumstances.
Those countries wouldn’t benefit even if the embargos were lifted. Cuba and North Korea would still be shitty places even if the US had no sanctions on them. There is nothing the US could provide these countries through trade that would suddenly make life better.
It's not for fun. It's that politicians are largely impotent in many situations, but refuse to accept this. I mean they're the leader of entire countries after all, and in the case of the US you're the leader of ostensibly the strongest military in the world, with enough nukes to end the world at your finger tips 24/7. How can you not be omnipotent, the most powerful person alive!?
But then it turns out that war is too dirty, cyber stuff isn't dirty enough. So what's left? Economics - sanctions. We've carried out 374 ultra important meetings, and traveled to 73 different countries, to prepare this critical 974th package of sanctions. This time it'll actually do something and be totally more effective than other 973, in spite of the fact that obviously the most impactful things are the first to be sanctioned.
It's obviously little more than theatrics, but it lets politicians feel powerful and like they're exerting influence on their enemies. And indeed, they may be responsible, at least in poorer countries for some people starving, which is then mental gymnasticed into 'Ah hah! They'll blame their government, overthrow them and become our ally, the people making them starve.'
It's really a shock that seems to basically never come to fruition. Well except when you're sanctioning a third of the planet [1], including many of the most unstable places in the world, and any time there's a regime change in these places - 'Ah hah! See? Sanctions work!' The fact that said change would often have happened in any case is kindly swept aside. It's akin to the joke that Zerohedge has successfully predicted 53 of the last 3 economic recessions.
The US government doesn't reflect the majority of Americans, at all. It reflects capital interests - which the majority of Americans are not. Majority of Americans are laborers.
Out of available US presidential, House, and Senate candidates, there is essentially no realistic electoral outcome where the people put into power will lift Iranian sanctions.
Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate.
>Representative democracy doesn't mean that every possible policy could be enacted by some realistic configuration of elected representatives, even if any particular policy is supported by a majority of the electorate.
that is only true if you flatten your system to two parties.
People are pointing out the hypocrisy of demonising Iranians for the actions of their government while insisting that Americans are unwilling victims of theirs.
blame English language on lack of distinction between plural(referring to 'your society' in this case) and singular you. I don't think that's a hard concept to grasp.
No, this has nothing to do with English grammar. I understand that you are using "you" in the plural, here. What I reject is the premise that "Americans" is an identifiable group that is collectively responsible for any particular thing, extending to people who never supported or voted for that thing.
This is a philosophical disagreement, not an issue of language.
In democratic system(please spare me "we're republic not a democracy" adage that every American spewes) every citizen votes, and shares responsibility in decision making process.
You can become politically active and try to convince others if you don't like current status quo, inaction is also a choice.
Unless you think US isn't a democratic country but authoritarian one(either oligarchy, technocracy or whatever - does not matter) then it is definitely not a philosophical disagreement, but lack of responsibility and wishful thinking.
> every citizen votes, and shares responsibility in decision making process
Why? I never consented to be a part of the system, don't agree with it, and in practice can do nothing to change it. Saying I'm responsible for it because I happened to be arbitrarily born with a particular citizenship is meaningless.
> In democratic system...
There is no reason why I, an unrelated individual, should have to ascribe to the ideals espoused by proponents of the system imposed on me without my consent.
But you know that in this case it’s true since the discussion is about the US in particular. So this “enlightened” take is really just snide time wasting.
Who voted on this issue and how many options did they have (on this issue)? The answers are "approximately zero" and "just one". There was no choice when it came to this issue.
Our western "democracies" aren't nearly as democratic as people like to believe.
> and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.
What other options are there, except idly sitting by or invading?
> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.
That's (usually) a secondary goal of sanctions, if even that. The primary is to restrict the regime's ability to fund its growth, stability and military operations.
Russia can no longer (that easily) sell its oil and gas? Great, that's less money to invest into rockets and drones and tanks against Ukraine. It's also less money in the pockets of the oligarchs.
Realistically, you can't really push the civilians of a country to revolt with sanctions, or bombing. As Carl Spaatz said:
> Morale in a totalitarian society is irrelevant so long as the control patterns function effectively.
'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.
Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.
>'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.
It's funny that people still believe governments let people elect anything. You can vote, you can ignore elections - result will be the same, your opinion doesn't matter
Then maybe some forces - economic, or realpolitik ones, or whatever etc - make the current situation a reality, no matter your political allegiance. Maybe it is infact an optimal resource distribution for current situation.
Or system is fundamentally broken, and You, as in populace, need to change it. you can talk to people, political party allegiance does not need to be a tribal relationship.
> 'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.
So what? Even if 99% of the population agrees with doing something, that has no bearing on whether I agree with it or am responsible for it.
And, anyway, no major candidate would have lifted sanctions on those countries, so nobody could have voted against them even if they wanted to.
> Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.
Perhaps Europeans, with their higher-quality parliamentary systems, are more likely to uncritically accept the idea that governments actually represent their people, whereas Americans are more likely to realize it's a sham.
>So what? Even if 99% of the population agrees with doing something, that has no bearing on whether I agree with it or am responsible for it.
You are a cog, participating in system, voting in it and acting in it. You could wash away your responsibility only if you go back to serfdom.
>Perhaps Europeans, with their higher-quality parliamentary systems, are more likely to uncritically accept the idea that governments actually represent their people, whereas Americans are more likely to realize it's a sham.
well.. not really, i would say Europe is worse off as EU is basically one-party system with flavor distinctions. It is different on country-level but that varies on case by case basis.
Nevertheless the idea of democracy stays the same - you vote, directly or indirectly, on issues - every citizen is a participant in decision-making process.
No matter the political system, or ruling entity you have it will always have those 3 goals(in order), cynically speaking:
- self-preservation
- changing resource distribution in it's favor
- expanding it's influence outside the borders
The only thing keeping our rights(and that includes human rights) is the fact that governments can be replaced by different one(in healthy systems) with populace support, or that populace will revolt and reenact french revolution again(in unhealthy systems), or outside forces will take over.
Systems can be changed - either by evolution or revolution. Take your pick.
To be clear, less than 1/3 of the voting age population of the US voted for Trump and less than 1/2 of actual voters voted for Trump. That is not a majority in either metric.
Lumping the entire population of a country under the term "you" when discussing contentious actions of the government of a country is inflammatory. You (yes, YOU) are directly accusing an individual by using the personal pronoun 'you'. The general populous of a country has close to zero say in what their government does on a daily (even yearly or longer) basis. Do I have anything against your average Iranian, Israeli, or North Korean? No, not unless they are directly in support of the objectionable policies of their respective governments. Barring evidence of this, I presume they are like most other citizens of a country, mostly along for the ride.
So, perhaps instead of attacking individuals who quite probably had nothing to do with their current government making the decision they made you should attack the governments in question and the leaders of those governments.
Not a dig at you, but it's a bit funny/worrisome to see how "we" are not in charge of what our governments do and "Nobody should be expected to take that risk" here, while comments from for instance sfn42 and mvdtnz says the Iranian people are supporting their government because they live and work in the country and should either take the risk by revolting or be classified as supporters of the government.
In the real world, sanctions happen for a variety of reasons. They have wide-reaching consequences, and you can't expect everyone to always fight every single goverment policy they don't personally approve of; an Iranian citizen is no more obliged to revolt against the Iranian government, than a citizen of sanctioning countries are to revolt against their governments for imposing those sanctions.
I for one want the USA to apply more sanctions, not less. It's debatable whether country-wide sanctions are just or even effective but I still think they should be applying sanctions much more freely than they are now.
The USA applied sanctions to the family members and law practice of a supreme court judge from my country literally yesterday. It's said this cut them off from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
It really kills their champagne socialism nonsense. They destroy my country and then enjoy foreign developed nations on taxpayer dime. You have no idea how good it feels to see these "gods" get what they deserve. I'll be forever thankful to Trump for it.
Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.
They could try to cheat! That's actually what Volvo did in the Dieselgate. The EU regulation mandated the impossible duo of lower NOx emission and higher fuel efficiency. Diesel engines get higher efficiency by increasing compression ratio, which also increases NOx production.
Quite slowly. Lignin, which makes up about 30% of woody biomass, is very difficult to break down biologically. Only a few specialized bacteria and fungi have the enzymes for it.
We don't need to sequester carbon permanently, we just need to bind enough of it into soil carbon to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The long residence time of carbon in the soil is sufficient for this purpose.
reply