The idea of these constraints on trade is to push ordinary people to the point where they rise up and overthrow the regime. This is the same reason for so-called strategic bombing where you bomb civilians in the hope of the same aim. Neither has ever been demonstrated to be effective.
(as a side point the use of the term "sanction" in this way became annoyingly weird in the 1990s -- it's actually sanctioning a restriction on trade).
The only reason you can get away with this sort of thing is because Americans have never had to experience these sorts of policies or any of the other things that they do to other people. If they had they would change their minds.
At the end all these policies are to steal resources, and have nothing to do with human rights.
That being said Iran's government needs to be pushed into the sea.
Well you could see the hipocrisiy it in the cuba-missile crisis. All of europe was expected live under direct missile thread- and the same was to be expected for the russians (missiles in turkey) - but as soon as the very same standards apply to gods chosen country, it was considered worth starting world war 3 to stop that.
I've wondered for a long time whether the US (and Europe) would get into so many conflicts if their own civilians were put at risk as well. The US was fighting a war in the Middle East, but back home it was business as usual.
Americans have never had to experience these sorts of policies
But Americans did have to experience their embassy invaded and its personnel taken hostage -- an extremely rare event (the only similar case I can recall was the MRTA takeover of the Japanese embassy in Lima).
While I am a fan of this line of argument I don't think it applies in this case. European countries and Japan, which were smashed to bits in WWII, still participate, sometimes eagerly, in trade restriction sanctions.
>The only reason you can get away with this sort of thing is because Americans have never had to experience these sorts of policies or any of the other things that they do to other people. If they had they would change their minds.
This is why it is so important to fight - and constantly fight - for free speech rights, and the right to form and hold an opinion which is precisely allowed because its not 'mainstream groupthink'.
A society which cannot criticise its military is ruled by it.
All members of the criminal (really, our wars are criminal) Coalition of Western Forces - its citizens as well as its 'service members' - must take responsibility for the violations of human rights that are happening, daily, in our name - and under our flag.
It is a terrible thing that ""Americans"" have absolutely no interest in seeing the results of their wars. It should be required viewing of all teenagers, so they know what their nation is doing for them.
That they have tuned themselves out - nearly completely - from actually understanding the people and the states they are bombing, illegally. In which states they are murdering civilian children, daily. For which allies we turn a blind eye while they commit, literally, genocide. Today.
And so on.
The fact that we don't communicate about these things - or are indeed prevented from doing so, is a huge tragedy.
We could be living in a much more peaceful world, if but for our criminal leadership.
>That being said Iran's government needs to be pushed into the sea.
I mean, if you can't speak a word of Farsi and don't know a thing about the Iranian people, or their culture - I'm personally of the opinion that this kind of attitude is just war-mongering.
(as a side point the use of the term "sanction" in this way became annoyingly weird in the 1990s -- it's actually sanctioning a restriction on trade).