Sanctions are nothing more than a temper tantrum for leaders/governments that cannot get their way and have failed to impose their will on other countries.

They don't work

Quote :

"One of the most definitive studies on the effectiveness of sanctions — covering the period from 1915 to 2006 — has shown that comprehensive sanctions are effective at best 30 percent of the time, and that the more comprehensive the level of sanctions, the lower their degree of success. In spite of this, sanctions remain one of the few internationally accepted means (short of military conflict) of attempting to change the behavior of national leaders."

They have unintended consequences

Quote :

"n Haiti in the 1990s, more than ten thousand Haitians tried to leave the country to get to the U.S. as a result of sanctions, and up to a quarter of a million children are estimated to have died when sanctions were imposed on Iraq during the same period. "

We always punish the quality of life of the people at the bottom for what the people at the top do. One group of greedy elites doesn't like what another group of greedy elites is doing so they punish the poor but the poor are already being punished everyday.

12/12/2017 12:06:18 PM

12/12/2017 12:14:55 PM

Sanctum was an enjoyable, pretty film even though it wasn't very good

12/12/2017 12:20:59 PM

Meaningful alternatives to sanctions (Pick only one):

1) continued diplomacy (I'm guessing this has hit a wall if sanctions are being discussed)

2) Military action

3) *shrug* carelessly, because hey, one time the US did that one thing that was also bad. Who are we to judge?

12/12/2017 12:27:00 PM

the alternative to sanctions is 2) war

a second alternative is to throw out your moral compass and operate via realpolitik instead, but that creates as many enemies as imperialism

12/12/2017 12:41:14 PM

^^ 1 and 3

^Most of these "morals" are quite subjective and cultural. Many think our high consumption in captialism is immoral. If someone like that was in charge of a more powerful nation, and didn't apply realpolitik to the US, you'd be in trouble. You have no right to enforce your moral compass globally.

12/14/2017 1:20:38 AM

Quote :

"I like to use quote boxes and not give references too!"

12/14/2017 7:22:57 AM

^^yep, the moral relativism is why realpolitik is utilized by other nations

12/14/2017 7:45:29 AM

^^oop

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/do-sanctions-work_b_7191464.html

12/14/2017 11:37:45 PM

Quote :

"comprehensive sanctions are effective at best 30 percent of the time"

I would actually consider a 30 percent success rate to be quite good in the context of international interventions. Any method of intervention that worked all the time - or even a majority of the time - would invariably be pursued early on.

12/15/2017 5:46:17 PM

Even when sanctions "work", they are often "working" by reducing the quality of life for the most vulnerable of the population to the point where society starts to fall apart.

12/15/2017 6:06:24 PM

And? The powerful in a country are ALWAYS the last to feel the effects of diplomacy/sanctions/natural disasters/famine/etc. No one's gonna change that. How many of these "societies" that are being destroyed by sanctions are propping up murderous regimes? How many were designed by the murderous regimes themselves? Again, the alternative here, at best, are targeted drone strikes of ruling elites (I'm guessing you have a problem with this too?).

The fact is we NEED an alternative to pure diplomacy (assuming you believe the US should interact with other countries). During negotiations you must be able to escalate beyond negotiating, or else what is to keep the process from going in repeated circles? Sanctions are an escalation, but are considered by most to be nonviolent. Sanctions are literally the cornerstone of non-violent libertarian (zomg entanglements) foreign policy. "We aren't gonna fight you, but we ain't gonna trade with you either." It works at both the individual (I refuse to shop at the KKK owned grocery store) and meta levels.

Lastly it brings me to something I've said repeatedly on here. The economic "big stick" should be the military "big stick" of the 21st century. IF America invests in herself (make education affordable, create a reasonable healthcare system, rebuild infrastructure, etc) then we will be a significant economic force for years to come, even if we don't remain the worlds super power. People are going to NEED to trade with our 14 digit GDP economy, and I think we should use that. It's certainly less sinister than our pre-emptive military action/drone strike foreign policy we've utilized over the last 15 years.

Now maybe you don't agree with our current government's use of sanctions. Either they use them too often or against the wrong folks. I have my own problems with our foreign policy, but that's no reason to dismiss sanctions in totality.

12/15/2017 7:04:34 PM

Quote :

"Sanctions are literally the cornerstone of non-violent libertarian (zomg entanglements) foreign policy."

do what now?

12/15/2017 7:37:23 PM

This is "little l" libertarians that still feel the federal government can regulate some commerce (ala the US constitution). And that US foreign policy should, in some way, have a consideration for human rights as well as US economic and geopolitical interests.

12/15/2017 8:19:06 PM

libertarians think individuals should be able to trade with those they want to and refuse to trade with those they don't want to. they do not support governments making that decision for them.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 8:49 PM. Reason : source: i'm a little l libertarian]

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 8:56 PM. Reason : free trade is not a libertarian gray area. it's pretty much a core belief.]

12/15/2017 8:48:39 PM

Exxon Mobile is an individual?

12/15/2017 9:38:42 PM

what i said extends to private companies, corporations, etc.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 10:01 PM. Reason : pedantry brings nothing to the discussion]

12/15/2017 9:59:06 PM

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/here-are-11-questions-you-can-ask-libertarians-to-see-if-theyre-hypocrites/

12/15/2017 10:42:33 PM

^^ So if a country is committing genocide we should allow Colt to sell them AR-15s and Boeing to sell them Apaches?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 11:12 PM. Reason : Lockheed can sell nukes to North Korea in your Utopia?]

12/15/2017 11:09:33 PM

i think Colt, Boeing, and Lockheed can make that decision for themselves and should be prepared to deal with the consequences

if i know someone is planning to commit murder and i sell them a gun, am i not liable?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 11:26 PM. Reason : adfs]

12/15/2017 11:22:45 PM

Quote :

"i think Colt, Boeing, and Lockheed can make that decision for themselves and should be prepared to deal with the consequences"

Awesome. I'm sure Lockheed is prepared to "deal the consequence" of the end of humanity due to nuclear armageddon.

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 12:55 AM. Reason : Very comforting ]

12/16/2017 12:54:56 AM

we're so far from that level of deregulation that it's pointless to discuss. let's start small and see where it goes. if we've opened everything up to free trade except nukes, then we can have that discussion.

12/16/2017 1:07:49 AM

Quote :

"we're so far from that level of deregulation that it's pointless to discuss"

We're talking about your worldview, which is not based in reality. Don't try and inject reality all of the sudden.

What happened to "libertarians think individuals should be able to trade with those they want to"?

And:

Quote :

"what i said extends to private companies, corporations, etc."

12/16/2017 1:09:22 AM

I get that you feel any government "regulation" is bad, but how is preventing Lockheed from selling nukes to North Korea bad?

12/16/2017 1:18:32 AM

nothing. i'm just being realistic about it. we're nowhere near that happening.

12/16/2017 1:20:31 AM

But you'd be ok with it?

12/16/2017 1:28:03 AM

Quote :

"i think Colt, Boeing, and Lockheed can make that decision for themselves and should be prepared to deal with the consequences"

Except what happens is those companies do everything they can to hide it and then lobby their Congressmen to not punish them for it.

12/16/2017 1:32:30 AM

no

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 1:37 AM. Reason : you guys are right. the government knows what's best for us.]

Quote :

" lobby their Congressmen"

sounds like accessory

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 1:38 AM. Reason : dafs]

12/16/2017 1:36:17 AM

Cool strawman.

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 1:40 AM. Reason : Preventing nuclear armageddon is definitely best for us]

12/16/2017 1:38:20 AM

i love how people think 1 nuke = the end of humanity.

its a bomb not a deathstar

12/16/2017 1:45:15 AM

imagine a continuum with totalitarianism on the left and private nuclear weapons on the right. i think we'd all be better off if we move to the right from where we are now. in general, that would mean not telling people what they can sell and who they can sell to.

^it's important to note that nukes don't really have any offensive value unless you're the only one with them. the US doesn't want others to have them because it would give them a seat at the grown up table.

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 1:51 AM. Reason : cS]

12/16/2017 1:49:17 AM

So you're still cool with selling nukes to North Korea.

Good to know.

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 2:01 AM. Reason : U want North Korea to have a seat at the grown up table? WTF is happening here?]

12/16/2017 1:55:40 AM

No

12/16/2017 2:25:03 AM

Would you be comfortable with being locked out of all global markets just because bush invaded iraq?

Would you be comfortable with Paris signees forcing our economic collapse because Trump backed out of the Paris agreement?

12/16/2017 6:19:27 AM

^It'd suck for the US, but in both cases it's what the global community probably should have done. Unfortunately for the global community the US swings a $20trillion economic dick, is a relatively safe place to invest, and is so well integrated into global commerce that cutting us out isn't an easy choice. We still got that going for us.

12/16/2017 8:58:19 AM

^^if the world community did that to us because we were making things far more unstable, safe, free and open then yea that would be a proper response

12/16/2017 5:03:04 PM

Quote :

"Even when sanctions "work", they are often "working" by reducing the quality of life for the most vulnerable of the population to the point where society starts to fall apart."

Leaving aside the fact that you said "They don't work" and now seem to be admitting that, actually, they work quite a lot of the time...

All interventions will have their most severe impacts land on "the most vulnerable." That's pretty much what vulnerability means: you get hit first, and you get hit harder. There is not an intervention that singles out the rich and powerful. So called "targeted sanctions" which claim to do so are a joke.

If the poor are going to suffer regardless, better they suffer in such a way that serves our ends - all the more so when our ends involve no small portion of desire to alleviate their suffering. That's a very cold rationale, but it's also the only one that works here. "Do nothing" is not a viable option. "Stick to diplomacy" only works so far, and it must not be working in a given case if we're talking about sanctions. "War" is going to land on the vulnerable even harder than sanctions do, except with the possible benefit that we'll get to hang some of the less-vulnerable people in the aftermath. Given that range of options, "sanctions" seems like a pretty good balance between "maybe it will do something" and "maybe not everybody will die while we do it."

Quote :

"Would you be comfortable with being locked out of all global markets just because bush invaded iraq? Would you be comfortable with Paris signees forcing our economic collapse because Trump backed out of the Paris agreement?"

No. Which would appear to be the whole point: because I'm not comfortable with these outcomes, I will try to make my government avoid or reverse such actions. Of course, these things didn't transpire - not because the rest of the world thought sanctions were immoral, but because we have too much strength for other countries to try it on us. "Should we sanction this country?" isn't the only question. "Can we sanction this country?" is also relevant.

[Edited on December 16, 2017 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2017 11:13:11 PM

^

12/16/2017 11:45:28 PM

Let me add that I'm not blindly in favor of sanctions. Some goals don't merit them, and some problems will only be exacerbated by them. The latter is particularly true of humanitarian interventions; if one side in an internal conflict is already suffering materially, then any sanctions are going to magnify that suffering in absolute terms, and probably even in relative terms compared to the target, offending group.

It's stupid to treat sanctions as an obligatory step on the road to war, as a means of showing that you "tried everything." I don't think you should bother starving poor people if you already know you're going to go bomb them. I think of Iraq, whose population suffered immensely under sanctions even as their military stayed at about the same (thoroughly defeatable) level. A country is going to let its military suffer last under sanctions - they'll divert their limited resources away from the population and towards the army.

12/17/2017 7:51:56 AM

Didn't know where else to post this. I particularly like Mearsheimer, who starts in at 14:25.

12/18/2017 1:56:21 PM