2 ms·

Sanctions don't work. Syria didn't collapse because of sanctions, but because of a very long civil war and, more importantly, a sudden imbalance in external for

by mirzap 1y ago

Sanctions don't work. Syria didn't collapse because of sanctions, but because of a very long civil war and, more importantly, a sudden imbalance in external forces (Russia was preoccupied with Ukraine). I don't think there has ever been a case where a country, or its people, changed the regime because of sanctions. Never. North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Palestine, and much of Africa are examples. Wars and revolutions change regimes. I would even argue that sanctions help regimes stay in power. When an external force imposes a threat (sanctions) on people, those people don't see the outside as "saviours" but as an enemy. They often resent the country that imposed the sanctions more than their own government, and they have no desire to fight an external enemy on behalf of a domestic dictator. Sanctions punish ordinary people, many of whom are already suffering under the regime. So they end up opposing both an internal and an external enemy. In the long run, sanctions probably destroy and cost far more lives than wars. It's a sadistic way to try to crush an enemy.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
You’re refuting a fairly robust study with vibes. > Syria didn't collapse because of sanctions Nobody said it did. > don't think there has ever been a case where a country, or its people, changed the regime because of sanctions. Never Literally a source with a page number, and, in a neighbouring comment, a table with the specifics. Like, if you had a button that could convert the world’s hot wars into mutual embargoes, would you not push it? Up the stakes: mutual embargo plus embargoed by their leading trade partner.
- mirzap 1y ago
  No. I wouldn't. Because it makes it easier for the stronger power to dominate without hot wars. Sanctions cost the U.S. very little when used against Iran, but for Iranians they are extremely hard and disproportionately expensive. A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S., and the higher the expected cost, the less likely policymakers are to choose it.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S. …we just had a hot war with Iran. It probably cost us less than our sanctions. I’ll say this: you’re consistent in your position and I respect that. I just don’t think many people share the view that people getting physically torn apart by munitions is better than have a less-comfortable, possibly borderline, life.
    - mirzap 1y ago
      My point exactly. It lasted 12 days. How much did it cost? How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years. Afghanistan war costed 2t for 20 years of war. That number would be reached withing months in a war with Iran.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years Idk, how much?

by mirzap 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

You’re refuting a fairly robust study with vibes. > Syria didn't collapse because of sanctions Nobody said it did. > don't think there has ever been a case where a country, or its people, changed the regime because of sanctions. Never Literally a source with a page number, and, in a neighbouring comment, a table with the specifics. Like, if you had a button that could convert the world’s hot wars into mutual embargoes, would you not push it? Up the stakes: mutual embargo plus embargoed by their leading trade partner.

mirzap 1y ago
No. I wouldn't. Because it makes it easier for the stronger power to dominate without hot wars. Sanctions cost the U.S. very little when used against Iran, but for Iranians they are extremely hard and disproportionately expensive. A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S., and the higher the expected cost, the less likely policymakers are to choose it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S. …we just had a hot war with Iran. It probably cost us less than our sanctions. I’ll say this: you’re consistent in your position and I respect that. I just don’t think many people share the view that people getting physically torn apart by munitions is better than have a less-comfortable, possibly borderline, life.
  - mirzap 1y ago
    My point exactly. It lasted 12 days. How much did it cost? How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years. Afghanistan war costed 2t for 20 years of war. That number would be reached withing months in a war with Iran.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years Idk, how much?