Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Oct '12 13:51
    http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/iran-loses-its-economic-battle-7552

    Yeah, what they need right now is to spend their non-existent national treasure to develop nuclear power plants for entirely peaceful purposes, regardless of how much it cripples their economy.

    If, in fact, they're not interested in nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they not negotiate an end to their nuclear program in exchange for lifting of all sanctions and a big western economic bailout, which they could probably get at the table?
  2. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    04 Oct '12 13:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/iran-loses-its-economic-battle-7552

    Yeah, what they need right now is to spend their non-existent national treasure to develop nuclear power plants for entirely peaceful purposes, regardless of how much it cripples their economy.

    If, in fact, they're not interested in nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they not n ...[text shortened]... f all sanctions and a big western economic bailout, which they could probably get at the table?
    Ahmadinejad's last thought as the rioting crowd tears his limbs off will be ..."It's the economy, stupid."
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Oct '12 14:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/iran-loses-its-economic-battle-7552

    Yeah, what they need right now is to spend their non-existent national treasure to develop nuclear power plants for entirely peaceful purposes, regardless of how much it cripples their economy.

    If, in fact, they're not interested in nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they not n ...[text shortened]... f all sanctions and a big western economic bailout, which they could probably get at the table?
    Gee why wouldn't a sovereign nation drop down on its knees and beg its enemies for mercy?
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Oct '12 14:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Gee why wouldn't a sovereign nation drop down on its knees and beg its enemies for mercy?
    It worked for Qadaffi (for over 20 years, anyway)
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Oct '12 14:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    It worked for Qadaffi (for over 20 years, anyway)
    And then what happened? Blackmailers don't stop blackmailing because you pay the first time.

    Here's a more realistic view:
    First, although Iranian sanctions are harsh, other economies have withstood harsher economic pressures in the past and there is no shortage of regimes under sanctions which have survived without changing their course – North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba, to name but a few.

    Second, if sanctions were to be judged by their adverse impact on the population at large their "success" would be a foregone conclusion. The tightening noose has already led to shortages in essentials such as some food items and medicine precipitating panic buying. Similar sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein pushed millions below the poverty line, increased infant mortality and stepped up the brain drain without altering the government's foreign policy.

    Third, precisely how economic sanctions are expected to "work" is not always clear. Two main explanations seem to be on offer. First, an implicit assumption that sanctions help the economic and political cycles to converge (ie, economic hardship will bring about internal implosion); and second, that they help alter the balance of the costs and benefits associated with undesirable policies (in this case Iran's "'nuclear ambitions" by raising the former and diminishing the latter.

    The problem is that the first of these "mechanisms" flies in the face of evidence: both the "Arab spring" and Iran's 1979 revolution followed periods of relative prosperity, not deprivation and hardship.

    Similarly, the cost-benefit rationale overlooks the fact that ideologue regimes like Iran tend to have a high pain threshold and may be willing to take a big hit against their population without yielding in their international stance. Despite growing economic pain, there seems as yet no overriding reason why the Iranian regime might back down on its nuclear stance.

    Economic sanctions – whether in Iran or elsewhere – are ultimately flawed because of the way they operate: as collective punishment they penalise the very victims of the target regimes who might use the spectre of external threat to quash internal dissent.

    As with so many sanctions in recent history, the sanctions against Iran are clearly proving capable of destabilising the economy and inflicting pain on ordinary people, while the prospect of achieving their stated objective of nuclear non-proliferation in the region remains elusive.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/iran-economy-sanctions-nuclear
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Oct '12 14:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    And then what happened? Blackmailers don't stop blackmailing because you pay the first time.

    Here's a more realistic view:
    First, although Iranian sanctions are harsh, [b]other economies have withstood harsher economic pressures in the past and there is no shortage of regimes under sanctions which have survived without changing their course tp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/iran-economy-sanctions-nuclear
    [/b]
    Do you have a better alternative suggestion (assuming one believes that Iran having a nuclear program is a bad idea)?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Oct '12 14:29
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do you have a better alternative suggestion (assuming one believes that Iran having a nuclear program is a bad idea)?
    Sure: go to war, march to Tehran, find all those WMDs they are stockpiling and have plenty of room in our rifles for all the flowers the grateful Iranians will be giving our troops.

    Worked before.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    04 Oct '12 15:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sure: go to war, march to Tehran, find all those WMDs they are stockpiling and have plenty of room in our rifles for all the flowers the grateful Iranians will be giving our troops.

    Worked before.
    lol

    I think that was either a "no" or no1 is peachy w/ Iran's Mullahs getting some nukes.
  9. 04 Oct '12 16:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    If, in fact, they're not interested in nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they not negotiate an end to their nuclear program in exchange for lifting of all sanctions and a big western economic bailout, which they could probably get at the table?
    Its quite simple. Many regimes thrive on conflict and deliberately encourage it for their own ends. (the US does this too, though usually in someone else's country).
  10. 04 Oct '12 18:16
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/iran-loses-its-economic-battle-7552

    Yeah, what they need right now is to spend their non-existent national treasure to develop nuclear power plants for entirely peaceful purposes, regardless of how much it cripples their economy.

    If, in fact, they're not interested in nuclear weapons, why on Earth would they not n ...[text shortened]... f all sanctions and a big western economic bailout, which they could probably get at the table?
    Is there anyone, on this forum or otherwise, who doesn't think that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons?
  11. 04 Oct '12 18:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do you have a better alternative suggestion (assuming one believes that Iran having a nuclear program is a bad idea)?
    Why would it be a bad idea? Sure, it would be bad for US geopolitical power, but it probably would be good for stability in the Middle East.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Oct '12 18:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Is there anyone, on this forum or otherwise, who doesn't think that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons?
    A few weeks ago No1 went bananas on me for making a similar assertion.

    Thread 147835
  13. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    04 Oct '12 18:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Is there anyone, on this forum or otherwise, who doesn't think that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons?
    Shouldn't the question be, "why does Iran want nukes?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Oct '12 19:13
    Originally posted by sh76
    A few weeks ago No1 went bananas on me for making a similar assertion.

    Thread 147835
    (Shrug) The thread speaks for itself; apparently the US intelligence services responsible for gathering information on what Iran is doing aren't as knowledgeable about Iranian actions as you, KN and "everybody else".
  15. 04 Oct '12 19:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    (Shrug) The thread speaks for itself; apparently the US intelligence services responsible for gathering information on what Iran is doing aren't as knowledgeable about Iranian actions as you, KN and "everybody else".
    Ok, so Iran is risking war and facing severe sanctions all because they so desperately need nuclear power?