Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iranian boy dies as a result of Obama's sanctions

  • 18-11-2012 09:55AM
    #1
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭


    A teenage Iranian boy suffering from haemophilia has died due to a shortage of medicine in the country.

    It is the first civilian death said to be directly linked to the impact that western economic sanctions are having on the Islamic republic.

    Manouchehr Esmaili-Liousi was a 15-year-old from a nomadic tribe based in the mountains near the city of Dezful, in Iran's south-western province of Khuzestan.

    He died in hospital after his family failed to find the vital medicine he desperately needed for his disease, Iran's state news agencies reported on Wednesday.

    The news was announced by Ahmad Ghavidel, the director of Iran's haemophilia society.

    He blamed Esmaili-Liousi's death on the US and EU for their punitive measures against Tehran, which are also hitting imports of medicine and hospital equipment.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/sanctions-stop-medicines-reaching-sick-iranians

    The sanctions are a disgrace. According to US intelligence agencies Iran has long abandoned its nuclear weapons program and officials said they've seen no move by Iran to start the program again. Obama has no real evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb, he is punishing ordinary Iranians based on nothing more than paranoid suspicions. Americans should be ashamed of themselves, what their country is doing to ordinary Iranians is barbaric.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Obama has no real evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb,

    How do you know this?

    Anyway, the US president or his agents, never needed more than a threat or a scare.


  • #3
    WIZE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,597 ✭✭✭WIZE


    Why did you put Obama in the title
    He blamed Esmaili-Liousi's death on the US and EU for their punitive measures against Tehran, which are also hitting imports of medicine and hospital equipment.


  • #4
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Only the start of this, considering between 100,000-500,000 children died in Iraq due to the sanctions there.
    Whatever you think of their leadership, the sanctions against Iran are wholly immoral, as it's just a massive exercise in collective punishment on the people of Iran.


  • #5
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Only the start of this, considering between 100,000-500,000 children died in Iraq due to the sanctions there.
    Whatever you think of their leadership, the sanctions against Iran are wholly immoral, as it's just a massive exercise in collective punishment on the people of Iran.
    Not wholly immoral, ethical dilemmas are rarely absolute. When you have Deontological and Teleological ethics clash, situations like this occur.


  • #6
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not wholly immoral, ethical dilemmas are rarely absolute. When you have Deontological and Teleological ethics clash, situations like this occur.
    Explain to me then, the deontological 'greater good' that justifies responsibility for the deaths of 100,000-500,000 children in Iraq?

    That's an airy philosophical attempt, at trying to abstract away the fact that these kind of sanctions, lead to massive numbers humans deaths.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    WIZE wrote: »
    Why did you put Obama in the title

    The EU follows Obama's lead.
    The U.S. welcomed the new EU sanctions Monday. "Rallying the world to isolate Iran and increasing the pressure on its leadership so that they stop pursuing a nuclear weapon has been a top priority for the president since the day he took office," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters traveling with President Barack Obama.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443675404578058001298783138.html

    The sanctions only create a headache for the EU. I think most of those countries following Obama's line wouldn't get involved with sanctions if it weren't for pressure from the US.


  • #8
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,937 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Well, we could always lift the sanctions and just bomb them, if it makes you happier


  • #9
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Well, we could always lift the sanctions and just bomb them, if it makes you happier
    Well that's very constructive; you advocate the idea that the only two choices, are to put crippling sanctions on them that end up killing enormous amounts of people, or to bomb the crap out of them, based on entirely unproven allegations, that they are developing WMD's?

    You must advocate putting sanctions on, or bombing the crap out of Israel too then, seeing as we know they have illicit nuclear weapons, and being the most warmongering nation in the middle east, are the most likely to instigate a conflict and end up using them?


  • #10
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Nothing short of appalling that a boy has died due another of the US's insane obsession, with imaginary WMDs.

    IMHO, this is murder plain and simple, and show how little the US gives a crap about who is hurt, in there various power plays.


  • #11
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    They're not going to work either. The sanctions are aimed at preventing the development of Iran and with China and India growing and non-aligned the Iranians have good demand for their natural resources.

    I wrote before here how sanctions have been killing innocent Iranians in plane crashes and are viewed by many as vindictive and unnecessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Sure what's an Iranian boy?
    500,000 Iraqi kids died as a result of sanctions and it was (to quote Madeleine Albright) "worth it".

    I wouldn't get too upset.


  • #13
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Explain to me then, the deontological 'greater good' that justifies responsibility for the deaths of 100,000-500,000 children in Iraq?

    That's an airy philosophical attempt, at trying to abstract away the fact that these kind of sanctions, lead to massive numbers humans deaths.
    A fair question for which I have no answer, those sanctions were before my time.

    All I can suggest at the moment is looking up the paper "Living on a Lifeboat" by Garrett Hardin. It would actually go a long way in explaining why sanctions (or removing aid) will probably result in famines and people dying. He explains the "Ratchet Effect", in which modern international policies have removed natural mechanics involved in sustainable supply and population size.


  • #14
    horsemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭horsemaster


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Well, we could always lift the sanctions and just bomb them, if it makes you happier

    I don't think this is what a Moderator should write.


  • #15
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    horsemaster wrote: »
    I don't think this is what a Moderator should write.

    Yeah it's kinda disappointing because MM usually has a pretty high standard of posting and would be one of the posters who's posts I'd read carefully to get a bit of an alternative perspective from.


  • #16
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    horsemaster wrote: »
    I don't think this is what a Moderator should write.

    Mods are entitled to their opinions just as much as any other poster and he has a point. A growing conflict with Iran has been has on the cards for decades. It's preferable for the US to engage in sanctions rather than all out war. Manic Moran was simply more blunt about it than normal.


  • #17
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Great, so why doesn't Iran just be fully transparent and prove that their nuclear programme is completely peaceful? embarrass the US, Israel and EU, allow full unfettered access as well as assurances that they will never weaponise.

    The Iranian administration could start this process tomorrow.

    But they don't. They choose to play this cat and mouse game, and we all know it. It smacks of nationalism, ego, and a diversion from dreadful domestic policy. They don't give one blind **** about "the people", just ask the opposition, oh that's right they've been obliterated half of them in Evin.

    And the "Israel has them" argument? again, great, so every country in entitled, look forward to the Saudi's getting their hands on them (inevitable if Iran weaponises), because that's what that argument supports.


  • #18
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Mods are entitled to their opinions just as much as any other poster and he has a point. A growing conflict with Iran has been has on the cards for decades. It's preferable for the US to engage in sanctions rather than all out war. Manic Moran was simply more blunt about it than normal.
    Again, the myth that it's an inevitable choice between one or the other, which you know is false.

    Nobody has shown they are trying to get a nuclear weapon, they have not broken any international laws, and sanctions are collective punishment on their entire populous, that will lead to enormous civilian deaths over time.


    Take any argument you have against Iran in this case, and replace 'Iran' with 'Israel', and every justification given for taking action against Iran, fits for Israel; hypocrisy to pretend otherwise.


  • #19
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Great, so why doesn't Iran just be fully transparent and prove that their nuclear programme is completely peaceful? embarrass the US, Israel and EU, allow full unfettered access as well as assurances that they will never weaponise.

    The Iranian administration could start this process tomorrow.

    But they don't. They choose to play this cat and mouse game, and we all know it. It smacks of nationalism, ego, and a diversion from dreadful domestic policy. They don't give one blind **** about "the people", just ask the opposition, oh that's right they've been obliterated half of them in Evin.

    And the "Israel has them" argument? again, great, so every country in entitled, look forward to the Saudi's getting their hands on them (inevitable if Iran weaponises), because that's what that argument supports.

    As if that would do the trick, lol. If it was not the Nuclear thing it would be something else Iran has.... ie WMD's or bigger clubs than everybody else in the region. Iran would be targeted simply because it is not in line with the US programme ideologically or otherwise.

    Well, we could always lift the sanctions and just bomb them, if it makes you happier


    They will anyway IMO.


  • #20
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    America will free the oil for us all, one country at a time.


  • #21
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Just reminding people that this is what US and EU involvement in the middle east is about and should be considered when talking about the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    As if that would do the trick, lol. If it was not the Nuclear thing it would be something else Iran has.... ie WMD's or bigger clubs than everybody else in the region. Iran would be targeted simply because it is not in line with the US programme ideologically or otherwise.

    Possible, but much more difficult. Libya 2005 and recent Burma are examples of this. A change in administration helps immensely.

    Iran has said openly and plainly that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, that such an action is unIslamic.. they don't want nuclear weapons.

    That should be good enough for the rest of the region right?


  • #23
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    tuxy wrote: »
    America will free the oil for us all, one country at a time.

    Frees/steals the oil from where exactly? and how much?


  • #24
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Great, so why doesn't Iran just be fully transparent and prove that their nuclear programme is completely peaceful? embarrass the US, Israel and EU, allow full unfettered access as well as assurances that they will never weaponise.

    They already offered that along with ending support for Hezbolla and Hamas shortly after the invasion of Iraq by the US and were as much as told 'nope, you're next'.


  • #25
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    Let's be real - ultimately the blood of this boy is on Israel's hands.


  • #26
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Chuck Stone wrote: »

    They already offered that along with ending support for Hezbolla and Hamas shortly after the invasion of Iraq by the US and were as much as told 'nope, you're next'.
    So, 8years ago.


  • #27
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They already offered that along with ending support for Hezbolla and Hamas shortly after the invasion of Iraq by the US and were as much as told 'nope, you're next'.

    Oh there's no love lost between the two but the above has been happening on both sides for a long time now.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-how-george-w-bush-offered-to-bring-iran-back-into-the-international-fold-7743532.html

    Likewise, Obama's offer out-and-out rejected.


  • #28
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Oh there's no love lost between the two but the above has been happening on both sides for a long time now.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-how-george-w-bush-offered-to-bring-iran-back-into-the-international-fold-7743532.html

    I'm quite surprised by that offer from Bush. It would have been interesting to see where it might have gone and I wonder if rapprochement would have been scuppered by interests in both Tehran and Washington.


  • #29
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,937 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    horsemaster wrote: »

    I don't think this is what a Moderator should write.

    There are a number of quotes over the years alongthe lines of diplomacy being useless without the ability to use force to back it up. Carrot and stick come as a pair. Negotiations with carrot thus far have achieved nothing, and there is little incentive for them to. Incentive must thus be provided with stick.

    There are few accepted forms of stick in multinational action. Sanction and military action. Given that choice, pick your poison.


  • #30
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    There are a number of quotes over the years alongthe lines of diplomacy being useless without the ability to use force to back it up. Carrot and stick come as a pair. Negotiations with carrot thus far have achieved nothing, and there is little incentive for them to. Incentive must thus be provided with stick.

    There are few accepted forms of stick in multinational action. Sanction and military action. Given that choice, pick your poison.
    Again, justifying collective punishment and eventually massive civilian deaths, saying "something must be done", when Iran are not doing anything illegal or wrong; the sanctions against them are nothing more than the US abusing their grip on international diplomacy, to try and get their way, who care nothing about civilian deaths.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,058 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    horsemaster wrote: »
    I don't think this is what a Moderator should write.
    Moderator of the Military forum is not a moderator when posting in US Politics.
    Is this really so complicated?

    On topic: If Ahmadinejad has a hemophiliac son / nephew / cousin you can be damn sure there's plenty of medication available.
    Sanctions do not have any adverse effects on decision makers, only on the little people. They have never worked against any totalitarian government.

    Quite the opposite, they provide a soap box to preach from. "The West is your enemy, look what they have done to you"


Advertisement