Economic Sanctions Don't Work. Duh.

[RedSkunk]

"The US has imposed economic sanctions on Syria after long accusing the Arab state of supporting terror and failing to stop militants entering Iraq.

President George W Bush ordered a freeze on certain Syrian assets in the US and a halt to all American exports apart from humanitarian items."

-

"The Cuban government has closed most shops selling goods in dollars.

It says it is an emergency measures in reaction to United States' proposals to tighten its embargo on the country.

Dissidents have expressed dismay at the whole turn of events.

They say that President Bush' declared aim to speed up political change here has given President Castro the perfect opportunity to create a sense of crisis in the country and they warn that a wider clampdown may yet come"

-

When was the last time economic sanctions have succeeded? We have Cuba - where Castro is still doing O-K, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. What exactly is the point of sanctions against Cuba, again?

Then we have places like Syria, and (of course) Iraq. How did sanctions have any meaningful impact there? By restricting civilian goods, important medicines, etc. Did Hussein feel the belt tighten? Did he have to cut back spending? Only 3 burka-clad prostitutes instead of 6? No!

Yes, it can be argued that sanctions successfully stopped Hussien from obtaining chemical or biological weapons. But aren't there better ways to stop such pursuits? Along with no weapons, came a [convenient] Islamic radicalization in Iraq, that people now ignorantly think was common place all throughout Iraq's history.

Economic sanctions' drawbacks outweigh their benefits. I say that we should stop such draconian measures, which ultimately only affect the citizens of these countries.

Thoughts or comments?

[TheShrike]

Seriously, you're just driving them to the competition!

[Thanatopsis]

i would agree with you that US embargos dont work and the UN embargos are almost as usless. there will always be someone who is willing to go against embargos such as Mexico with Cuba and the rest of the Arab world for Syria. and in doing this they only limit the economic expansion of the nation not destablize it.

[Jlop985]

Thanatopsis is right. Not to mention that sanctions only hurt the little guy. As you have pointed out, skvnk, a country's leadership and its elites will not be significantly affected by sanctions. However, those at the bottom will feel the shortages of food and medicine and other basic necessities. Sanctions are immoral. Other actions must be devised.

[Grim]

Follow the capital attack.

Sell to the local markets (of teh desired country to control)
Undercut the local producers to weed out competition
Build up economic dependence on your supply
Reduce the quality to the minimum required for sale (optimize profit)
Track all sale items of potential harm (chemical, electronic, military grade) for future pre-emptive measures

Economic counters to foreign protest
- lower the price of consumables = immediate effect
- reduce quality of military goods shipped = prolonged control
- sponsor several civic events with mass media and advertising

[RedSkunk]

Yes. See, that's a much more moral and just way to.. colonize.. other countries..

bah.

[NoHitHair]

In theory, economic sanctions should work - but you're right, in application, they don't.

But I don't think it's a bad idea. Money is power and every leader in the world knows this. India won't sell you a nuclear bomb by adding 'please' to every sentence.

It could work if it was handled differently. "Oil For Food", for example, didn't work because we relied on the Iraqi government to basically police themselves - that's retarded. As for the sanctions against Cuba, there is no good reason to have them. We should lift them - period.

[RedSkunk]

At 5/12/04 05:33 AM, NoHitHair wrote: In theory, economic sanctions should work ... It could work if it was handled differently. "Oil For Food", for example, didn't work because we relied on the Iraqi government to basically police themselves

Yes, you have a point here. So what could be a better way to do it? Say - the Oil for Food program?

[GooieGreen]

At 5/12/04 07:51 AM, RedSkvnk wrote: Yes, you have a point here. So what could be a better way to do it? Say - the Oil for Food program?

That program will never work they way it was meant... or said to work to be passed. It's a shame, because it would work if the world was half as corrupt

[Der-Ubermensch]

The american government knows very well what they are doing. Syria will just be the next Iraq.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/12/04 12:53 PM, Ruination wrote: The american government knows very well what they are doing. Syria will just be the next Iraq.

*DING DING DING*

We have a winner!

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 5/12/04 12:57 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/12/04 12:53 PM, Ruination wrote: The american government knows very well what they are doing. Syria will just be the next Iraq.

*DING DING DING*

We have a winner!

Oh my gosh! W...what do I get!?

[Thanatopsis]

At 5/12/04 01:06 PM, Ruination wrote:

At 5/12/04 12:57 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/12/04 12:53 PM, Ruination wrote: The american government knows very well what they are doing. Syria will just be the next Iraq.

*DING DING DING*

We have a winner!

Oh my gosh! W...what do I get!?

let me check the new grounds prize budget
*pulls up acount on pc
you can eather get a 1000 mexican Paso's or a used pissed on limp Bizkit cd your desision.

[Der-Ubermensch]

I think I'll go for the Cd...

[Empanado]

At 5/12/04 02:21 PM, Ruination wrote: I think I'll go for the Cd...

W-What?! El Paso rocks!

[Jimsween]

Morons....

But back to the subject, economic sanctions do work, saddams army was in shambles when we invaded because of years of poor funding. However something like the oil for food program is needed to make sure the civilians don't suffer for the government's actions.

[Jimsween]

At 5/12/04 07:22 PM, LetsKnife wrote:

At 5/12/04 07:09 PM, Jimsween wrote: Morons....

But back to the subject, economic sanctions do work, saddams army was in shambles when we invaded because of years of poor funding. However something like the oil for food program is needed to make sure the civilians don't suffer for the government's actions.

oh how kind, so you are saying that the economic sanctions worked on iraq because then the US could easily defeat its army.

Yes, thats the point of sanctions, to stop the country from being able to support further agression. If we hadn't there is no double Iraq would have invaded someone.

and the oil for food is such a good program, it comes handy to the US that the iraqi people are starving (mostly because of the economic sanctions) now they have a better position to "negotiate" the oil. no wonder they hate the US

You're a moron. Do you even know how the oil for food program worked? Obviously not, the US never even got alot of oil out of it.

[Jimsween]

At 5/12/04 08:17 PM, LetsKnife wrote:

At 5/12/04 07:48 PM, Jimsween wrote:

and the oil for food is such a good program, it comes handy to the US that the iraqi people are starving (mostly because of the economic sanctions) now they have a better position to "negotiate" the oil. no wonder they hate the US

You're a moron. Do you even know how the oil for food program worked? Obviously not, the US never even got alot of oil out of it.

you are so brainwashed

sure , then the US wont get a lot of oil at all from invading iraq. and i was thinking that was the reason for the invasion, so they could get in a better position to "negotiate" the oil!!!.

moron is your favorite word isnt it moron? try posting three consecutive times without using it, learn some other insults

Moron, just a moron. Saddly enough your post has no parts that can be replied to, because its just one massive pile of shit, but I take satisfaction in the fact that other people will see what you just wrote, and think about how stupid you are.

[NoHitHair]

Well, I'm not really sure how I would change the economic sanctions - I haven't thought about it too much. But if put on the spot, I suppose the first thing I would do is have a much bigger hand in a government's dispursement of their budget. In this, I mean we'd prevent them from pulling food from their people to pay for the weapons that they no longer can because of the sanctions. As for implementing that plan, the only body I would feel comfortable doing it would be the U.N., but, unfortunately, their power is extremely limited both militaristically and politically. So, as it stands right now, economic sanctions are most definitely a failure.

[FatherVenom]

The problem is that there is competiton. What we really need is a seige, of the old fashion variety. Nothing gets in besides inbound weapons nothing goes out except corpses. Which then get sent back in straped to inbound weapons.

Seriously though the oil for food program would work if we could have policed it ourselves. The people come to a center where we feed them and so forth. Of course we would have to have a log of all the fingerprints of the people of Iraq so they we could decide who needs the food and make sure they are the ones who are getting it. That's really unfeasable, just as unthinkable as the Iraqis allowing US troops in their country without attacking them.

[NoHitHair]

For the most part, I agree. Economic sanctions are a viable solution to punishing a country, but only if its carefully monitored one way or another. Otherwise, the same abuses that happened to the Iraqi people will happen everywhere else where they're sanctioned.

[TimScheff]

Sanctions don't really work except in rare circumstances. Either you need to cut off a nations supply to something that only you can provide in adequate quantities (oil/energy for Japan pre-WWII, though it drove Japan to war) or everybody participates (South Africa to end Apartide, though the US didn't join in untill the very ed of the international campaign).

[RedSkunk]

The Oil for Food programme completely limited Iraq from rebounding after the first Gulf War. Now was the point to limit their military, or limit the country? Besides the money being diverted into Hussein / et al's bank accounts, the money could not be used to pay for any gov't officials - thus limiting civil police forces, and [more importantly] teachers. It also destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, in areas such as food production.

So, sure. Sanctions could work, with the proper authority from the UN, or whoever is trying to enforce them. But what country is going to give up their national sovereignty to do such?