sanctions, do they work? have they ever worked?

mods, wasn't sure where to put this.

there are many issues that concern this topic.
the first and most important in my book is,
do sanctions change how the government they are impossed upon do business, or do they just hurt the average joe citizen?
i'm basically against them, i just don't see the point.

here is an article that examines a few issues, compliance, subversion, deterrance, international symbolism and domestic symbolism.

link

Obama concedes different view with Iraq on Syria
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama says Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's position on Syria—that he does not have the right to ask Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down—is based on what's best for Iraq and not influenced by Iran.
The Obama administration has called for Assad to step down. Iraq abstained from Arab League votes suspending Syria's membership and imposing sanctions. Those positions align Iraq more closely with Iran, a key Syrian ally.

Al-Maliki appeared in a news conference Monday with Obama.

Al-Maliki said he does not encourage economic sanctions because they hurt citizens of the targeted country.

Obama said he and al-Maliki may have different tactical views on Syria but that al-Maliki has the interests of Iraq in mind.

www.denverpost.com...

the un and others have imposed sanctions so many times on so many countries it's difficult to disect all the information.
have sanctions worked on countries like cuba?
do sanctions take food away from the countries people?
anyhow, i think you'll get my question.
all replies are welcome, unless you only wish to insult me for some reason or other.

Sanctions had progressed beyond just upon a nation, and are now targetted sanctions, which are against the elites ruling the country.

Had sanctions worked? In my honest opinion, no. No simply because dictators don't give a damn, and the few states in the UN that does not agree to sanctions, either out of fear or greed, will keep dictatorships alive.

But then, is no sanction at all better or to have at least some international show of protest againsts dictatorships better? My honest answer would be to have sanctions when such a question is poised.

Look at the despicable monarchist state of North Korea masquerading as Karl Marx's Commie Utopia. WIth NO sanctions, such as then offered by South Korean unders its insane 'Sunshine Policy' which kept that horrendeous regime well fed, it only fed its military under its 'Military First' policy, selling the excess in exchange for military goods such as nuke techs and developed nukes, while leaving our fellow human brothers and sisters there starved. Nothing got to them.

In the end, should we have sanctions? YES! BUT each and everyone of us MUST convince ALL nations' fellow humans to participate in it in order to make it effective. WIthout trade and food - which most nations will not have the lucky combinations to be self resourceful, will force them to behave rationally not only to fellow humans in their nations, but be a responsible nation to the world for our common progress and evolution. WIthout needs being met, the People will demand an honest accounting from their leaders, whom are solely responsible for their welfare.

Utopia? Perhaps. But then, all great endeavours begins with a dream, from you and I, and had came true often in the course of our civilisation......

Sanctions are the better alternative than wars. In wars, precious human lives are lost. But in sanctions, they are only pure commercial transactions as practised worldwide for centuries. It is just simply - if you don't like my product quality or service, why should you be forced to buy from or served by or patronise me unless you enjoy being screwed by me when you can get what you want elsewhere, if even at a higher but reasonable price you can afford conscionably or do without?