On 11/5/06, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Invasion is not in the cards yet. Why not sanction Iran, however?
Because sanctions are a very blunt instrument that can harm, even
kill, lots of innocent people. The business of throwing off the
Iranian regime is mainly for Iranians,.
Some Iranian critics of the government do not think so. The most
famous of them, Shirin Ebadi, has called for selective sanctions,
e.g., "the West should downgrade its diplomatic relationships with
Iran," cease "new investments," call upon "the World Bank" to "stop
providing Iran with loans," etc., until such time as the Iranian
government improves its human rights record and takes practical steps
toward democracy (Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi, "Link the Nuclear
Program to Human Rights," 19 January 2006). It's not possible to
characterize such selective sanctions as a very blunt instrument.
While Ebadi's view is a minority view in Iran (calling for sanctions,
even selective ones, doesn't make her very popular among ordinary
Iranians), it is not obvious that such sanctions as advocated by Ebadi
will kill lots of innocent people.
On 11/5/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK. Iran has some popular support. Who supports sanctions here?
I doubt anyone here would, unless David or maybe Max does. I'm asking
about what we say to the American public, rather than what we say to
each other, for it is apolitical Americans who need to be persuaded to
oppose sanctions and other instruments of the empire.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
