Sanctions, do they even work?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Off the top, I cannot think of where sanctions have actually worked.

In olden times armies of conquest surrounded and cut off every city they encountered. This was called a siege, depriving the inhabitants of food, water, goods, in an effort to get them to surrender, to weaken them to such a degree that the surrounding army could then invade take them because they were so weakened by hunger and disease.

Nowadays we 'lay siege' to other nations that don't comply with our global agenda thru electronic means, by restricting payment for certain goods like hospital supplies, for instance. This has the direct effect on the people not the gubment. The siege is directed at people, to make the gubment surrender.

Once sanctions have done their work, embargo and blockades follow, then full on invasion if necessary.

Turning off the water, power, sewage, food transport etc. during the bombing campaign of Iraq, Libya, Syria, for instance. The bombing campaign is over pretty quickly, then the people are left to starve and die of thirst and disease. This takes time. Thats why NATO invaded Iraq twice...

The "First" Gulf war turned off the utilities, then ten years later, the ground army rolled in.

Thats a siege, nowadays.

I was going to reply to this thread but you already summed up everything I was thinking about the subject only better.

and a hat tip!

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Ohanka
No. You essentially force hardship onto the common people of the target country, and the leadership of said country will merely use them as a way to rally support and fuel the ever-growing anti-west sentiment.

Some western-imposed sanctions are nothing short of genocidal. Such as those imposed on Iraq in the 90s, or the ones on the DPRK. Saddam was not ousted by popular uprising thanks to western sanctions, and Kim won't be either.

I've long held the belief that those who support sanctions and officials who impose them should be forced to live in conditions similar to Iraq in 1995. Have fun.

Just a hypothetical, let's suppose Chamberlain and fellow European leaders had imposed sanctions on Germany prior to say WWII. Let's say 1935.

Strong sanctions. Oil, war making materials, so on, 'could' that have worked to prevent, at least in part, the events of WWII?

There is a strong sense that Chamberlain was a major player in empowering Hitler via appeasement.

No. In fact that was on of the reasons Japan attacked America. What could be described as sanctions were rendering it next to impossible for Japan as a country to even function. A good thing admittedly, given Japan's genocidal war of aggression against all of Asia.

Although It would have started the war earlier and the Germans would've been swiftly crushed thanks to their military weakness.

Though now I think about it seems sanctions are just a way to force a would be aggressor into a defensive war, thus ensuring internationally they are viewed more favourably for what they wanted to do anyway.

a reply to: Ohanka

The only point I would part ways is Japan's choice in the matter. They 'could' have come to the conclusion that their Asian war was not going to succeed. If they had done so, sued for peace, etc. that oil supply would have been reversed.

Meh, Karma....

nvm

a reply to: nwtrucker

Think of it like food stamps, if people want alcohol or tobacco they will find a way to do it, sanctions only make the black market more profitable.

Sanctions run the black market. They are usless. I usually laugh when i hear about new sanctions. Well obviously the old ones didnt work...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Good point. A lot of city-states, in the day.

On Iraq? sorry, but not buying it.
On global agenda? Not buying.
On banks behind them? NK? Sorry, not buying that one either.

Saddam wanted to trade oil for gold instead of Petrodollars, so did Qaddafi. See what happened?

Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Qaddafi's removal was run by Britain and France, not the U.S..

Besides, the thread is about the effectiveness of modern sanctions, not the source or motive of them, yes?

NATO, the 800 pound gorilla used-- in fact, misled Saddam to think he was safe entering Kuwait without repercussions. Besides, the reasons NATO invaded Iraq were WMD, baby incubators and False worry he would try and conquer the world like Hitler did. I remember, I was around back then.

Turns out the west is the one lying its ass off, they are the ones invading and conquering. Rewriting history isn't helping your position.

a reply to: nwtrucker

If one such entity invokes that level angst then one or many have the right to withhold/cancel their side of the agreement.

Sieges are outright war.

When cops surround your house and shout "surrender, come out worth your hands up!" , thats a siege. They may even turn off the power and water...

When they come in the house, gas, flash bangs, and guns, thats an invasion.

a reply to: Lumenari

Thanks for the support.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Good point. A lot of city-states, in the day.

On Iraq? sorry, but not buying it.
On global agenda? Not buying.
On banks behind them? NK? Sorry, not buying that one either.

Saddam wanted to trade oil for gold instead of Petrodollars, so did Qaddafi. See what happened?

Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Qaddafi's removal was run by Britain and France, not the U.S..

Besides, the thread is about the effectiveness of modern sanctions, not the source or motive of them, yes?

NATO, the 800 pound gorilla used-- in fact, misled Saddam to think he was safe entering Kuwait without repercussions. Besides, the reasons NATO invaded Iraq were WMD, baby incubators and False worry he would try and conquer the world like Hitler did. I remember, I was around back then.

Turns out the west is the one lying its ass off, they are the ones invading and conquering. Rewriting history isn't helping your position.[/quo

That post speaks louder than anything I could post in rebuttal. I will leave it at that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Don't 'leave' w/o checking for typos.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

If one such entity invokes that level angst then one or many have the right to withhold/cancel their side of the agreement.

Sieges are outright war.

When cops surround your house and shout "surrender, come out worth your hands up!" , thats a siege. They may even turn off the power and water...

When they come in the house, gas, flash bangs, and guns, thats an invasion.

No argument from me on that point. Both are force, however.

Sanctions have zero force. No longer willing to do business, even when it is agenda driven, is an act of non-cooperation. Those that do not agree with that act continue to do business. Be it as national policy or as others have posted, via black market means....profit.

It's closer to say 'shunning'. An Amish act and they're about as non-violent as it gets.

Then there's Ghandi. About as non-violent an individual as it gets. Yes? He motivated a whole nation to 'sanction' England's industries.

Now that I think of it, that 'sanction' actually worked!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Hmmm, are 'boycotts' in the same 'area code' as sanctions?