3 ms·

I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That

I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.
jessaustin 8y ago
You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie. "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo. > "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business. Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war. Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        You keep repeating that (probably because you've heard it repeated a lot), but it isn't true. Sanctions at most times and in most places have been pretexts for future wars. Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. Sanctions certainly have not caused Russia to give back the Crimea to Ukraine. It's like any disputed territory inhabited by mostly-sane people. The residents who wanted Russian rule are happy, many of those who didn't have moved back to Ukraine, and it's not as though any of the civic institutions really work differently anyway. I am not "against any sort of killing". If I have a good enough reason to kill I will do it. I have killed lots of animals while hunting and dealing with livestock. I am not "benevolent". However, I am also not evil. It is for that reason that I don't want my tax dollars used to kill innocent children in foreign lands. The killing done by Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam, and the Taliban is on their own heads. (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) In my parents' lifetimes, we have never improved a situation overseas by invading. By that measure I suppose sanctions are a little better, because it's arguable that e.g. South Africa was improved by sanctions...
1024core 8y ago
At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.

dunpeal 8y ago
Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.

jessaustin 8y ago

You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie. "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.

dunpeal 8y ago
> Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo. > "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business. Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war. Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      You keep repeating that (probably because you've heard it repeated a lot), but it isn't true. Sanctions at most times and in most places have been pretexts for future wars. Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. Sanctions certainly have not caused Russia to give back the Crimea to Ukraine. It's like any disputed territory inhabited by mostly-sane people. The residents who wanted Russian rule are happy, many of those who didn't have moved back to Ukraine, and it's not as though any of the civic institutions really work differently anyway. I am not "against any sort of killing". If I have a good enough reason to kill I will do it. I have killed lots of animals while hunting and dealing with livestock. I am not "benevolent". However, I am also not evil. It is for that reason that I don't want my tax dollars used to kill innocent children in foreign lands. The killing done by Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam, and the Taliban is on their own heads. (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) In my parents' lifetimes, we have never improved a situation overseas by invading. By that measure I suppose sanctions are a little better, because it's arguable that e.g. South Africa was improved by sanctions...

1024core 8y ago

At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.

dunpeal 8y ago
During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.