[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That any nation (or group of nations) has the right to impose “sanctions” on another nation is ridiculous.
I wonder how many would support America having sanctions imposed on it…
Was the US right in imposing sanctions on Japan before WW2 or should we have sold them oil to fuel their murderous war machine?
What non-US countries would you support imposing sanctions on the US, without the consultation or consent of the US?
You really are clueless aren’t you?
Not at all.
But hell, go ahead an enlighten me about why its OK for (some) countries to decide who can have what type of weapons.
If you support sanctions on Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation on this planet) [imposed by other countries], then you should support sanctions on America [as decided by other countries]. [/quote]
Sanctions OK for whom? Those that want to see a nuke go off in Tel Aviv or NYC? No.
OK for those that would rather not see that happen? Yes. Sanctions are perfectly acceptable.
What non-US countries would you support imposing sanctions on the US, without the consultation or consent of the US?[/quote]
Since when do sanctions require the consent of the sanctionee?
Sanctions are a form of punishment - why would you seek permission to punish the offendee?
As to you comment on why one country can have a certain kind of weapon and others can’t - such moral relativism on the global accomplishes one thing: wholesale slaughter.
If you support sanctions on Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation on this planet) [imposed by other countries], then you should support sanctions on America [as decided by other countries]. [/quote]
In all seriousness, perhaps the worst argument I have read here in months, and that is saying something, considering Lixy has been posting.
Outside of the ludicrous equivalence of the US and Iran, countries are technically free to sanction us as much as they want - their funeral.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
rainjack wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What non-US countries would you support imposing sanctions on the US, without the consultation or consent of the US?
And you called me stupid?
What in the holy fuck does that question even mean?
Is English your first language? God I hope not.
And you’re proving me right.
I’ll write this slow because I get the impression you dont read fast.
Several countries that do not include Iran (non-Iran) are attempting to impose sanctions on Iran, without consulting Iran or getting the consent of Iran.
I was asking if Zap would be comfortable with the same happening to America.
Understand now?[/quote]
no - your question is stupid. I make it a point not to waste much time on stupidity such as you have displayed here. It is embarrassing.
What does it matter if I support sanctions imposed on the US? Japan hasn’t bought our beef for a few years now. I don’t know if it is still going on, but that is a santion that didn’t really bother me in the least.
You need to understand the concept of economic sanctions - then maybe come back when you can contribute.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I would also appreciate it if other countries would quit buying our beef. The increased demand has driven prices through the damned roof.
[/quote]
Not me. I live in beef country. The cattlemen in the US have been sucking hind tit for 30 years. People are actually making a decent living at it now.
If you support sanctions on Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation on this planet) [imposed by other countries], then you should support sanctions on America [as decided by other countries].
In all seriousness, perhaps the worst argument I have read here in months, and that is saying something, considering Lixy has been posting.
Outside of the ludicrous equivalence of the US and Iran, countries are technically free to sanction us as much as they want - their funeral.
[/quote]
Do you think Iran should respect the nuclear weapons sanctions placed on it?
If so, would you also say that America should respect any nuclear weapons sanctions placed on it?
Or does your whole argument really boil down to “We can so its ok that we do”?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
rainjack wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What non-US countries would you support imposing sanctions on the US, without the consultation or consent of the US?
And you called me stupid?
What in the holy fuck does that question even mean?
Is English your first language? God I hope not.
And you’re proving me right.
I’ll write this slow because I get the impression you dont read fast.
Several countries that do not include Iran (non-Iran) are attempting to impose sanctions on Iran, without consulting Iran or getting the consent of Iran.
I was asking if Zap would be comfortable with the same happening to America.
Understand now?
no - your question is stupid. I make it a point not to waste much time on stupidity such as you have displayed here. It is embarrassing.
What does it matter if I support sanctions imposed on the US? Japan hasn’t bought our beef for a few years now. I don’t know if it is still going on, but that is a santion that didn’t really bother me in the least.
You need to understand the concept of economic sanctions - then maybe come back when you can contribute.
[/quote]
I’m talking about dictating what weapons a country can and cannot produce. Economic sanctions are a little off topic here.
I perfectly understand the reasons many of you believe its ok for some nations to impose weapon sanctions on other nations.
And I would at least respect that opinion (though disagree) IF you included America on both sides of that. That, were the UN to decide that America should not have nuclear weapons, that America should clear house and never make any more. But this is, of course, not the case.
The most obvious argument is that some countries are more dangerous than others. But what if other countries decided America was too dangerous (maybe one too many pre-emptive wars?)? Would that change your opinion?
The rest of the reasons I can see for supporting that stance basically come down to racism, nationalism, or cowardice.
But its not likely that I’ll actually get any responses that address the issue… other than to say I’m clueless without any explination as to why (because its like… so totally obvious that I like… dont even wanna bother explaining something so like… totally obvious, man. Its just totally obvious and I dont have to explain it because its so obvious that the only way to explain my reasoning is to…um… say that its totally obvious and not try to back it up at all. totally obvious.")
Capped, the sooner you come down out of the clouds and realize that the real world of international politics isn’t a theoretical textbook model, the context will fall into place and you will understand.
Might makes right.
Let me repeat, in case you missed it:
Might makes right.
This makes people uncomfortable, it makes people squirm and cry about how unfair it is, but it is the truth. And deep down, people know it to be true. It has always been this way and always will be.
Right now, the U.S. has the power and the leverage over everyone. This makes people uncomfortable, it makes people squirm and cry. It makes people like you ask these dopey questions about sanctions on America.
So go ahead, put “sanctions” on America. And when America “sanctions” right back, those countries will quickly realize that America’s “sanctions” actually have some teeth.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Capped, the sooner you come down out of the clouds and realize that the real world of international politics isn’t a theoretical textbook model, the context will fall into place and you will understand.
Might makes right.
Let me repeat, in case you missed it:
Might makes right.
This makes people uncomfortable, it makes people squirm and cry about how unfair it is, but it is the truth. And deep down, people know it to be true. It has always been this way and always will be.
Right now, the U.S. has the power and the leverage over everyone. This makes people uncomfortable, it makes people squirm and cry. It makes people like you ask these dopey questions about sanctions on America.
So go ahead, put “sanctions” on America. And when America “sanctions” right back, those countries will quickly realize that America’s “sanctions” actually have some teeth.[/quote]
Thats the kind of attitude that gets planes flown into buildings.
Do you think Iran should respect the nuclear weapons sanctions placed on it?[/quote]
Well, it should - sanctions work because they are backed by force. Iran should respect the sanctions if it fears the force backing the sanctions - in this case, yes.
Well, it should - sanctions work because they are backed by force. The US should respect the sanctions if it fears the force backing the sanctions - in this case, no.
You fail to distinguish that there are qualitative differences in the countries that own or seek nuclear weapons. Western democracies? Makes more sense. Radical autocracies hell-bent on regional domination by force? Less sense.
And basically your statement is true w/r/t “we can so its ok that we do” - despite wishes to the contrary, in geopolitics, that is how nations behave and always will.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m talking about dictating what weapons a country can and cannot produce. Economic sanctions are a little off topic here.
[/quote]
What “sanctions” are we imposing on Iran that are not economic? You are indeed clueless here.
We don’t buy oil from Iran. That is economic. Why do we not buy Iran’s oil? As punishment for them not giving up their nuclear weapons push.
All sanctions are economic. Name one that isn’t.
You should really follow my advice and learn about the subject before making a bigger fool of yourself.