3 ms·
Well the you can compare it with commercial sanctions to Cuba, Irak or North Korea that the international community don't suffer too much (they're not big playe
by ghostDancer 16y ago
Well the you can compare it with commercial sanctions to Cuba, Irak or North Korea that the international community don't suffer too much (they're not big players) but the people of those countries do, not only their governments.
- berntb 16y agoOTOH, you can't let dictators use their own population as hostages, when they buy weapons instead of feeding the populations (Saddam, which you mentioned, had lots of money from smuggling). Also, is it better to let those populations suffer in "jail" for generations? (If I was Eastern European, I'd be pretty pissed to have been left to rot until 1989.) If nothing else, the dictators spread their problems (support of terrorists, atom weapon programs etc). Look at WW II for what will happen when democracies are pressed. At the start of the war, British military argued against bombing private property (German factories). Compare that to a few years later. (I guess the place where this is closest to happen next, is Israel and the humongous Hezbollah (/Hamas?) arsenals of rockets optimized for attacks against civilians.) Point is, those juntas are arguably a blight on humanity that needs to be solved, the longer it takes the worse it might be. Ah well, this is both after the discussion and irrelevant to Wikileaks. Edit: Made a bit clearer.