4 ms·

> 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

> 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...
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. The Russians have a ton more guns and tanks. Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine because of repercussions, and sanctions are part of that. If we were back in 1940, the Russians would have taken over Ukraine long ago. > (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) Conspiracy theory.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine Yes, like it or not, they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_interventio...
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. They themselves didn't feel the same about Crimea, because of course historically it only became a part of Ukraine in 1954, a "gift" of USSR. Russia is today surrounded by nations it theoretically (well, it might depend on the current oil price: yay fracking!) could defeat militarily. Are sanctions protecting all of those? If we assume that's possible, how could we ramp up sanctions from their already absurd levels if Russia started threatening e.g. Azerbaijan or Mongolia? Please, let's live in the real world: USA sanctions against Russia are not sustaining Ukrainian independence. As is always the case, the Ukrainians themselves are doing that. Conspiracy theory. AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order. AQI developed into ISIS after we further disrupted both Iraq and Syria, in those regions of both nations where no one (including armies of USA, Iraq, Syria, Russia...) dared venture. For many years, most of their arms and ammunition came from American-supplied caches "stolen" from the apocryphal "good rebels" that we were repeatedly told actually existed and would kick out Assad real soon now. This is basic recent international history. How is it that you haven't kept up with this?
        8y ago

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...
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. The Russians have a ton more guns and tanks. Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine because of repercussions, and sanctions are part of that. If we were back in 1940, the Russians would have taken over Ukraine long ago. > (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) Conspiracy theory.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine Yes, like it or not, they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_interventio...
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. They themselves didn't feel the same about Crimea, because of course historically it only became a part of Ukraine in 1954, a "gift" of USSR. Russia is today surrounded by nations it theoretically (well, it might depend on the current oil price: yay fracking!) could defeat militarily. Are sanctions protecting all of those? If we assume that's possible, how could we ramp up sanctions from their already absurd levels if Russia started threatening e.g. Azerbaijan or Mongolia? Please, let's live in the real world: USA sanctions against Russia are not sustaining Ukrainian independence. As is always the case, the Ukrainians themselves are doing that. Conspiracy theory. AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order. AQI developed into ISIS after we further disrupted both Iraq and Syria, in those regions of both nations where no one (including armies of USA, Iraq, Syria, Russia...) dared venture. For many years, most of their arms and ammunition came from American-supplied caches "stolen" from the apocryphal "good rebels" that we were repeatedly told actually existed and would kick out Assad real soon now. This is basic recent international history. How is it that you haven't kept up with this?
      - 8y ago