3 ms·
Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected. Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening th
by deepsun 4y ago
Nope, they are good policy. Speaking as one affected.
Those who can move -- move out of the country (usually the most economically active people), weakening the regime ability to make weapons.
Those who starve have nothing to lose, so they start fighting the regime. Revolutions never happen in well fed society.
- newrotik 4y agoWhat evidence do you have to support your claim? Many countries have been subjected to sanctions for years, yet their military power hasn't diminished significantly (NK, Iran, ...). The misery of the poor and disenfranchised, which you dismiss as people not "having anything anyways", has however been much exacerbated.
- KptMarchewa 4y agoYou must be joking if you think both countries military power haven't been effectively diminished. Only thing NK has going for them are nukes. Iran too - they've been focused on reverse engineering cold war tech, which they did with mixed results.
- deepsun 4y agoIt has diminished (or didn't grow) significantly. The only country I remember that still had really strong military after sanctions was Iraq.
- turtledove 4y ago> Revolutions never happen in well fed society. What? My understanding was that the revolution in Iran happened during a period of relative economic prosperity.
- cudgy 4y agoEveryone in the Matrix was well fed. All kidding aside, people want more than just food.
- cudgy 4y agoThese actions only galvanize a country further to be even more dependent on manufacturing weapons to defend themselves, become more self-sufficient, and potentially seize nearby resources from adjacent countries. The people that do leave tend to be the wealthy aristocracy with the resources to leave for their own selfish reasons.
- deepsun 4y ago> to defend themselves contradicts > potentially seize nearby resources from adjacent countries.