[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership? [/quote]
Yes.
When things start to get really scarce their Government will come in and take even more from the people. When it comes to feeding people who do you think they care more about? Their army or the civilians.
If North Korea has shown us anything it is that sanctions don’t work and they only hurt the populace not the people we are trying to get rid of.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership? [/quote]
I don’t think it has to effect them anymore than their own leader. But, the leader is still going be there while their situation just get’s worse.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I read you previous link.You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the leg.And you’re correct,I will waste no time explaining anything to you,junior.
Why don’t you watch my video, I even said skip the part with Ron Paul. starts at 3:14.
But I am more inclined to believe that you watched my video, found out I just proved myself right and are now back tracking out of this thread. You are my new Lixy.[/quote]
Anyone who reads the thread can see exactly who is the one making up all new and improved definitions of accepted terms in order to define what is an ‘act of war’ in a way that fits their preconceived notions.I have neither confirmed or denied whether I am pro or anti anything to do with Iran,be it bombing,sanctions or anything else.It’s got nothing to do with me that you can’t follow a train of thought,and resort to trying to paint those that point out your lack of sense with a particular brush.A bit of a dull and disingenuous tactic,but I’m sure it works a treat at school.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership?
I don’t think it has to effect them anymore than their own leader. But, the leader is still going be there while their situation just get’s worse. [/quote]
So basically you’re saying they get a stick with shit on both ends?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership? [/quote]
If you watch the video I posted start at about 3:14. it will take about 2 minutes of your time and then you can come to your own conclusion if they affect the countries anymore negatively then the actions of their own country.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The democrats are pathetic, they really do not understand how to deal with people who are hardcore ruthless like the Iranian leadership.
[/quote]
You forgot to mention who has shown how to understand and deal with these people.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program have been going on for years., they have gone nowhere. More of the same failed approach is not the answer. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
Bush was not negotiating, he was making demands. Telling the opposition what the outcome will be, as a prerequisite to even sitting down at the negotiating table is not really negotiating. So yeah, eight years of failure is pretty dismal. Sure, it would be neat-o to see Obama magically solve all the problems in his first year, that Bush couldn’t solve in eight years. [/quote]
The Europeans, IAEA, the UN, were negotiating with the Iranians the entire time before Bush was president and after. Negotiations have gone nowhere.
The US could wipe Iran off the face of the earth. We are in a position to make demands. When Bush tried to use pressure the Democrats did everything they could to undermine him so of course that approach didn’t work. It’s all the fault of the congressional democrats and now they have their guy in the white house they still aren’t geting results.
Bush failed because the democrats did everything they could to undermine his position. If this ends up with the Israelis taking the initiative because America wouldn’t it will Obama’s failure.
That’s it run away, and protect your weak ideas that way.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership?
I don’t think it has to effect them anymore than their own leader. But, the leader is still going be there while their situation just get’s worse.
So basically you’re saying they get a stick with shit on both ends?[/quote]
Worse, than that. They get a shit with a stick on both ends. And their Tyrant leader usually takes the sticks for himself.
Sanctions don’t work generally,because there is always a middle man willing to take the risk to bust the sanction in order to make a handsome profit.But they do make things more uncomfortable for the population,the degree varying depending on what it is that is being denied.This can lead to different outcomes depending on the country.In S.A. I can say that there is no doubt in my mind that sanctions sped up the end of apartheid.While the country could have gone it alone for another 20 years,sanctions made it very clear that the road would be uphill and difficult,and the end result would be the same.So in this case,I think they worked.
But sanctions are in no manner,shape,or form a declaration of war.
[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
John S. wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
I’ll say YES.
Who are we to say that it would be a bad decision?
Bring back the draft, and let’s go all out!
Who’s got the Picard facepalm here?
Thanks, gentlemen! That’s just what we need to bring a political debate forward.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to insult you here, but let’s take a step back. 3 wars? How did the last 2 go for us? Oh, wait, we’re still in them trying to bring democratic government to peoples that can only be ruled by either a) ruthless dictators or b) tribal leaders (same thing). “Why?” you ask. Because the religion of Islam is not conducive to anything but. The Pakistanis just had elections and they voted in Islamists and shari’ah. The Egyptians voted in the Muslim Brotherhood. The Palestinians voted in Hamas. The Turks voted in Ergodan (an Islamist whose government puts nothing but anti-US propaganda on the news).
Iran is not a threat to the US. It’s a threat to Israel. Israel has the means, but not the will, to defend itself. We should not go to war for people who are unserious about defending themselves. That’s just a general rule. Israel didn’t take out Hiz’ballah in the last war, and it’s a small organization. In fact, they could have prevented the Shi’a crescent from ever forming if they’d stayed in southern Lebanon in the first place. Now, they have an Islamizing northern neighbor as the Christians move out and Hizballah takes over.
We are not the Macedonians. We don’t need to rule everything from Mesopotamia to central Asia and beyond. We can’t even run our own country right.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership?
I don’t think it has to effect them anymore than their own leader. But, the leader is still going be there while their situation just get’s worse.
So basically you’re saying they get a stick with shit on both ends?
Worse, than that. They get a shit with a stick on both ends. And their Tyrant leader usually takes the sticks for himself.[/quote]
I see your point…so you’d agree that the tyrant leader uses the sanctions as leverage on their own people for their personal(and somewhat political gain)…and/or basically an excuse. I’m not saying that people don’t suffer but…ahh,you know where I’m going with this.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership?
I don’t think it has to effect them anymore than their own leader. But, the leader is still going be there while their situation just get’s worse.
So basically you’re saying they get a stick with shit on both ends?
Worse, than that. They get a shit with a stick on both ends. And their Tyrant leader usually takes the sticks for himself.
I see your point…so you’d agree that the tyrant leader uses the sanctions as leverage on their own people for their personal(and somewhat political gain)…and/or basically an excuse. I’m not saying that people don’t suffer but…ahh,you know where I’m going with this. [/quote]
It’s always difficult to quantify exactly how to attribute what suffering to what cause.It’s a catch 22.You continue to trade with the tyrant,then you allow him to continue unchallenged.In the case of the despot,he’s going to take everything he wants anyhow.
Yeah. But sanctions and such aren’t why Islamists hate us violently. True, these things might cause them to focus their attention on us now, instead of in a couple more generations down the road. No, when they list grievances in audio and video releases for our media, it’s to stir up political divisions among the infidels. Islamists, such as Laden, feel Islam must submit the world through the use of the sword. They’d probably be content for now with focusing their efforts in the Mid-east, Africa, Russia, and Asia. Immigration and demographic changes would help prepare the way in Western nations for a time when they are prepared to focus exclusively on us.
I am still waiting for an explanation as to how sanctions are not an act of war. If I had to bring up a video of Bin Laden telling us why he attacked to prove that they view it as an act of war(thus showing how uninformed the masses are) then before anyone goes down this path saying they are not an act of war explain.
Also keep in mind that the Middle East already views it as an act of war, and we would too if we had sanctions imposed against us.
So because the entity under sanction calls it an act of war,you accept their terminology?Brilliant.Nothing like using Bin Laden’s or any other despot’s viewpoint to shore up your case.Why don’t you expand your definitions to include their definitions of other words needing adjustment,like justice,liberty,law?The only uninformed one here is you.There you go:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But sanctions are in no manner,shape,or form a declaration of war.[/quote]
The other guy made a pretty good argument that they are. You just repeated “no they are not, no they are not, no they are not” for several posts. I’m afraid that the Iranians don’t give a damn what you think. If they think that us stopping other people (by coercion) from selling them food is an act of war then so it is.
That’s not to say that sanctions work though. For the South Africans it was more a case that the Africans elite realised that the rest of the world thought that they were living in the stone age than any tangible economic squeeze.
But sanctions are in no manner,shape,or form a declaration of war.
The other guy made a pretty good argument that they are. You just repeated “no they are not, no they are not, no they are not” for several posts. I’m afraid that the Iranians don’t give a damn what you think. If they think that us stopping other people (by coercion) from selling them food is an act of war then so it is.
That’s not to say that sanctions work though. For the South Africans it was more a case that the Africans elite realised that the rest of the world thought that they were living in the stone age than any tangible economic squeeze.[/quote]
Read the link above.
You must have a very pliable definition of what a good argument is.His argument consisted of "They(Iran,Bin Laden,Saddam) say it is,so it must be so."By that definition anything can be declared an act of war if you define it as such.Punitive tariffs on imports?Act of war.Stern televised speech?Act of war.
What makes you think that the Afrikaner elite gave a flying fuck what the rest of the world thought?One day they woke up and thought…'Gee…maybe we’re in the wrong?Nobody likes us!'Riiight.
For sure sanctions had an economic effect on SA,and it accelerated the inevitable.Do they work every time?No.I have already stated that earlier in the thread.Are they an act of war?No.If you think they are,then as I asked him,back it up with anything other than your opinion,some p.o.s Ron Paul blog,or some youtube clip.Like I said,read the link and get back to me.Some things in life require more than blogs and youtube to be taken seriously,and sometimes you have to do some real reading.
And for an added bonus,since we are all now accepting what some Islamic fundamentalists or Communist despot fuckpigs say as the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth,that would make U.S. armed forces personnel war criminals,politicians in Washington war criminals,The British Army are war criminals,etc,etc.Denounce Islam?War criminal,that is an act of war.
But please,by all means keep using what “they” say as the gold standard of what is or isn’t fact.I,and the vast majority on these boards and the Western world,will keep using our own uninformed definitions,evolved over time and with due thought,while you trailblazers forge the new path.
My thoughts on why sanctions don’t work in the middle east-
Allegiance lies with family first, then friends, followed by fellow countrymen. All others can pretty much fuck off.
So a country becomes subject to economic sanctions. Ruthless leader has brought the world down upon their heads. There is unrest among the populace. Ruthless leader addresses the unrest and discomfort. He is a fellow countrymen to all of them, a friend to many, and family to a few. He is one of them.
The local suffering populace say “Why are they doing this to us?” and ruthless leader responds- “They (the U.S. and U.N.) don’t like the way we live. They don’t want us to have XXXX.”. The Leader identifies himself as one of them who is suffering too, even though it is not true. He wants them to have what ever it is that they want. The populace identifies with him as one of them, and they are in agreement. The ones that don’t are either exiled, killed, or seek refuge elsewhere.
Now they hunker down against a common enemy- The one who has imposed economic sanctions upon them. Their determination is steeled by their common bond of suffering, and an impasse has been established.
The situation is Fucked, and the only thing left to do is start firing rockets.
Now it is just a matter of who fires the first shot.