Multiple Iranian and Iraqi News Sites Seized by US DOJ and FBI

I screencapped this, and I want you to take a look at it, and then think about it. Honestly, truly think about it.

 

But we aren't talking about UN sanctions are we?

We're talking about unilateral sanctions, a means by which one nation actively targets the well being of another's civilian population for political goals, a strategy the US is very fond of conflating with international sanctions in it's language. Unsurprisingly the available data on the human cost varies depending who is currently in charge, I'd be pretty damned surprised if it didn't, but the point stands you're targeting the wrong people and rarely hurting the right ones.

There's another term for actively making war on a civilian population rather than their military by the way.

Whether international sanctions are valid is another matter, what is important is that unilateral sanctions are in many regards the modern day equivalent of siege warfare but with a dubious track record of actually having the desired effect. You're starving people out in the hope they will rebel and do your fighting for you, which isn't at all unlike the mentality behind staging that coup you so love to collectively forget.


As for China, how have the sanctions in Iran worked out?

North Korea?

Didn't seem to shift Saddam either for that matter.

 

"assistance"

 

Why are you excluding a whole bunch of aid categories from this map by using the filters?

 

I clicked on "Conflict, peace, and security" for a reason. Thanks for giving it a whole split second's thought, though.

This is everything unclicked, for those of you curious, but not curious enough to just click the link.

 

Are there any countries that appear for this century on this list of "countries the U.S. has bombed," that aren't receiving aid from the U.S.?

 

Thanks!

A list of countries the United States has bombed.

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

Iraq and Syria 2014 –

Somalia 2011 –

Iran 2020 –


Goddamn, we just never seem to run out of bombs, do we? Look at Somalia there, with no end date and they've been bombed in some form or fashion continuously since 2011. Iran's latest is 2020, and no end date, and that's with the economic sanctions. Fuck me, look at all of that, and then @tafkats here is like "we paid them money!" (except we didn't pay Iran much money).

Shit, that didn't work for me in Sunday School when my teacher said God had paid back Job for all he lost, and that sure as hell doesn't work now. Did you honestly post this thinking it was some kind of win towards the United States? Why could this ever be seen as anything other than a clear example of the imperialism the US engages in every day for generations?

How much value do you think the US extracted from these countries? We already know they're working to extract at least $50 billion in assets from Iran, and the chart says they've given Iran $1.4 million. Sounds like a good deal for the US. What is the exchange rate for brown lives to white lives?

 

So we've gone from "why doesn't the U.S. do this" to "okay, the U.S. actually did do that, but it doesn't count."

 

No, we haven't. You took one excerpt from my post about how the US is trying to extract $50 billion in assets from Iran, and whether or not the US pays people for bombing them, and you said "look at all these countries the US pays when they bomb them!" and I can't help but think you figured that was a good argument to make. Like that was the position you were going to build upon like it doesn't show the absolutely psychopathic bullshit the US does every day while calling itself good. Maybe the phrase should be more like "scratch an American liberal, and an imperialist bleeds." Can you even see it? I know you didn't give a second's thought to what I posted earlier, about the map and where the money came from and to where it was being allocated and for what purpose, but the US does a lot of "nation building," which is just a lovely term for imperialism and colonization. We've been "nation building" in the Middle East for generations, and people keep dying because of our "interventions." You didn't even slow down when you posted your reply.

So what we've been doing is pointing out just how complicit and culpable the US is for why things have reached the point they have, and you, thankfully, were so gung ho about how the US will give Job a new wife and kids to replace the old one he murdered, and that makes everything okay again. You just put it right fucking out there like it was a prize pig. Thank you.

So, yeah, the US does compensate every country it has bombed, to some degree, while also extracting as much value from those countries in assets, and other resources, as possible. You sure showed me, @tafkats.

Did you ever do that conversion for white lives to brown lives? So far it seems to be $50 billion to $1.4 million, but I'm not 100% on my math.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...strikes-against-iran-backed-militias-n1272489

Better get that checkbook ready.

 

Here is our list of national emergencies. Check out the current national emergencies and where so many of them are focused:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

I guess we're just never going to stop blowing the Middle East the fuck up. There's not enough Iranian, Syrian, Iraq, or Palestinian blood to stop the US war machine from rolling forward.

 

Or more succinctly paying people off doesn't justify bombing them.

 

There's a reason I play Imperial-aligned in every Star Wars video game. They call themselves the Rebel Alliance, I call them terrorists lead by fanatic adherents to a several millennia old religion.

 

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

 

Why, yes, US sanctions have impacted Iran's economy, exactly as intended. Your article does not state that it is anything remotely related to a war crime.

It also says that sanctions are what drove the Iranians to JCPOA. Unfortunately, a very stupid US president removed the US from those protocols, eliminating the positive effect it was having on regional security.

No, $50 BILLION in court ordered compensation. That is not the same thing as $50 billion in seized assets. Actually read your source. And much of that was not by US courts, but by the Hague.

You CONSTANTLY either misunderstand or lie about these sources, and quite frankly, it's getting to be onerous keeping up with all of the misinformation you are spreading.

Bring it to the Hague, maybe the US administration in power will care, but probably not. We did send $268 million in compensation for an Iranian airbus we erroneously shot down 40 years ago. It's not like the US has never conceded a mistake or paid a price for them

Of course it's ok in some cases. See: American Civil War, World War 1, World War 2. Hell, blocking economic ties to the Soviet Union was one of the major reasons that system fell. The Soviets tried it against West Berlin, and failed. You have absolutely no grasp of history.

It is up to the country in question to feed its people. Period. No one else has a positive responsibility to ensure every other country lives up to a certain standard of living.

Biden unfortunately inherited Trump's fuck up on the JCPOA, but the two countries are working towards a resolution there, and if so, we'll see sanctions drop. It's better than active warfare, which is Israel's take on how Iran's nuclear ambitions should be dealt with.

I understand you don't understand this, but this basic break from reality is once again one of the primary reasons that your specific ideology holds no power, anywhere, and never has.

 

"Defensive" airstrikes on the other side of the world. Jesus wept.

 

The specific quote was 'Sanctions = war crimes.' If that's not what you meant, use your words. No one will ever accuse you of a paucity of verbiage.

Making war? Ridiculous. Economic sanctions are most often intended to preclude war. In Iran's specific case, over nuclear proliferation and the threat by members of their government that they'd wipe another nation off the face of the earth with Allah's fire.

We dropped the majority of sanctions and unfroze millions in assets when we struck a deal with them on this issue under the Obama administration. The worst president in US history reneged on the deal, so we are attempting to reenter the deal at this time.

In cases of a real war, blockades are far, far worse than the sanction regimes we have now. They brought Germany and Austria-Hungary to their knees in WWI, the Confederates economy was totally destroyed in the Civil War. No, Iran is not at that level of desolation now, let alone the fact the US military is capable of flattening it's cities en toto.

So no, sanctions aren't war.

The fact you see any coercion for policy matters in those terms is naive.

Modern day equivalent of siege warfare? The overwhelming majority of the US sanctions have to do with banking.

And there are specific cut outs for humanitarian aid. Banks are allowed to deal with Iran if it means food or medicine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa...ty-on-humanitarian-aid-for-iran-idUSKBN28I2DO

Blockades are siege warfare. See above - when you've eaten all the pets and move on to rats. Stating that no, we won't let you bank with us is economic coercion, and it's considerable hyperbole to say these are the same thing.

Pretty well actually - it drove them to the JCPOA, and has limited their military ambitions to asynchronous warfare. Unlike China or Russia, their tanks haven't rolled into new nations for the purpose of adding them into their regime.

That was a failure, to be sure. But we aren't going to reward that regime with access to the global markets while they remain one of if not the worst authoritarian regime in the world. Helping them prosper is not in anyone's interest.

There actually was an uprising against Saddam three years into the sanctions. Clinton didn't materialize the help that he had promised, so it was repressed. One of the US worst foreign policy blunders, IMO.

 

Why exactly do Iranians and Syrians have a right to attack US troops in a country other than theirs?

The US troops are down to 2,500 in the country, and the remaining ones are there for training and support purposes to assist the government against ISIL and threat from Iranian backed militias that seek to overthrow the government.

Attacks are being launched from Syria by Iranian backed militias. Of course the US forces have a right to respond to that. There's been 5 mass drone attacks and several rocket attacks in the last month against targets in Iraq, both US and Iraqi.

 

These aren't "Iranians" or "Iranian militias". That's a further embellishment of the "Iranian-backed militia" spin that your government is using and which - as usual - you unquestioningly parrot.

Those killed by the US attacks were Iraqis. The group is the PMF, an Iraqi militia, founded to fight ISIS by the Iraqi government. They are targetting US assets because the US murdered their leader and continues to operate in Iraq - and do so having rejected official Iraqi requests for them to leave. The Iraqi government has also condemned these attacks as a violation of their sovereignty.

As a Shia organisation the PMF somewhat align with Iran but they have their own local constituencies and interests. The implication that they are being directed from Tehran is a lie designed to manufacture a threadbare legal argument for US forces acting with impunity against anyone in the region who might oppose them.

 

While recognized as one of dozens of militias in the PMF, the KSS literally has pledged allegiance to the Ayatollah Khamanei - the supreme leader of Iran, and uses his imagery in their propaganda. The PMF was an attempt to put political control on disparate groups that were fighting ISIL - many of which were under the direct command of the Quds forces of Iran.



They are allies of the Badr Brigade, which has a political arm in Iraq, it started as an Iraqi organization armed, supported and literally led by Iranian officers.

Both are fighting in Syria to support Assad.

The KSS has directly fought against the Iraqi military in January of 2016, with Prime Minister Abadi sending in an Iraqi armored brigade to half the fighting. They are also believed to help Assad conduct his chemical attacks against Syrian civilians.

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mapp...kataib-sayyid-al-shuhada#highlight_text_17975

And we both know that Iraq hasn't formally asked the US to leave - there was a non-binding resolution concerning all foreign troops, that virtually all the PMs who aren't in the Shiite coalition refused to take part in. The US and the Iraqi government continue to have talks over the issue. And the Iraqi military has repeatedly requested additional US support, stating that they need the US for air support, reconaissance, and elint, as they lack these capabilities themselves.

NATO has responded to Iraqi requests to increase troop levels, as the withdrawal of the majority of the US and many of the NATO governments individually has led to more successes by ISIL, in addition to the responsibilities that the Iraqi armed forces have in dealing with covid.

So no, pretty much all of your assessment was erroneous. Yes, they are Iranian backed militias, no, they weren't ordered to attack the US by Iraq but instead either by their own initiative or more likely by Iran, and no, the US has not been ordered to leave the country, but is drawing down their military with NATO stepping in to fill the void.

 

You called them "Iranians" and "Iranian militias". Own it or correct yourself. Referring to the links that they have to Iran, which I have not denied, is evasion.

A claim that has not been made by anyone.

The Iraqi Parliament voted to ask them to leave and the Iraqi Prime-Minister asked them for a "roadmap for withdrawal". The US refused to discuss either, explicitly said so and then threatened sanctions against Iraq if they took the matter any further. This is not a consensual partnership.
Further, there are specific agreements with Iraq defining the parameters within which American forces must operate. These are routinely violated, leading to repeated condemnation from the Iraqi government, including on this occasion. The pattern of behavior is completely lawless and all of this nonsense about Iran and self-defense is simply a PR exercise to cast a veneer of legitimacy for those who aren't paying any actual attention.

 

This, folks, is apologia.

 

So, it's not an act of war because it's limited?

A sanction is an act designed specifically to cause harm to a civilian population in order to motivate them against their own government.

No matter how bad that government is you don't get to overlook your own actions in undermining it. Nor do you get to use the fact that people are living in poor conditions as a justification for making those conditions worse in the hope it'll tip them over the edge. Nor do you get to overlook the human cost to a violent uprising should one actually occur. That, after all, is your goal.

The difference between China and Russia on the one hand and NK or Iran on the other is you can afford limited acts of aggression against the latter with little fear of meaningful reprisal.

Against China the risk of escalating retaliation is simply too high to tolerate.

Put more bluntly you can't bully them the way you can smaller nations and whilst we've seen their tanks rolling into other countries let's not overlook the fact that neither is objectively the most aggressive nation on the planet.

You are.

Should UN sanctions then be applied to the US? According to your logic you'd be the prime candidate for economic sanctions and it wouldn't be aggression.

You wouldn't see mass unemployment and a breakdown in your economy or infrastructure because anyone wished you harm, oh no.

It wouldn't be an outrage, simply the best way to motivate a beneficial uprising. Isn't that what Russia very nearly achieved by meddling in your elections? No self interest on their part of course, just keeping an aggressive and oppressive regime in check.

 

This. US policy towards the Middle East tends to consist of "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
Our military budget is bigger than Russia and China's combined, along with 8 other nations, including India, France, Germany, and the UK. We have a long history of aggression towards nations that do not bend to our good graces.

Source, for people curious: https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

 

Nature is healing!

 

Iraq says US airstrikes breached international law:

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f44b58-d80e-11eb-8c87-ad6f27918c78_story.html

US foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

Again I say.

"Assistance "

 

I also like the use of "military ally," because Iraq asked us to leave and we threatened them with sanctions, so they let us stay. Those are our "allies."

 

Would those be the sanctions that do no one any harm and are in no sense an act of aggression?

 

The very ones. I mean, what would our military ally Iraq be so afraid of because of a few sanctions?