4 ms·

I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "san

I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#3_December_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_... Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.

acqq 11y ago
Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Compare the state of Iraq before 2003 and after. Most of the deaths before 2003 were induced by the Western sanctions and bombing, probably much less by Saddam. http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ Look at Iraq now. Also Libya before 2011 and afterwards. The "rebels" in Libya, supported by the West, were again at least sometimes, again "accidentally," al-Qaeda. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-swi... Re "our rebels" in Syria: Al Nusrah wasn't on the list of the terrorist organizations before 2014. ISIS wasn't too, now it's "but we considered them under al-Qaeda." http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm Of course it's a mess there, but it's clear that Assad was considered as the main target. Just like Saddam before. Or Gaddafi. Civilians and all the other effects be damned. I don't see there anything "objectively" righteous.

acqq 11y ago

Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.
- acqq 11y ago
  Compare the state of Iraq before 2003 and after. Most of the deaths before 2003 were induced by the Western sanctions and bombing, probably much less by Saddam. http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ Look at Iraq now. Also Libya before 2011 and afterwards. The "rebels" in Libya, supported by the West, were again at least sometimes, again "accidentally," al-Qaeda. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-swi... Re "our rebels" in Syria: Al Nusrah wasn't on the list of the terrorist organizations before 2014. ISIS wasn't too, now it's "but we considered them under al-Qaeda." http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm Of course it's a mess there, but it's clear that Assad was considered as the main target. Just like Saddam before. Or Gaddafi. Civilians and all the other effects be damned. I don't see there anything "objectively" righteous.