• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

have economic sanctions ever accomplished their stated goal?

ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
topple castro: no
topple hussein: no
topple kim: no
topple the ayatollah: no

so, what have they done?
 
from personal observation they seem to hurt the general population more than the people creating the problem or ruling over said people. but that was a complete generalization on my part
 
Economic sanctions don't topple the leaders, and they do hurt the common people, but they also tend to keep the leader bottled up in their country and unable to extend their power beyond their own borders very well.

If your economy isn't strong, you can't build a strong army. The only reason why Cuba/Iraq/N. Korea/Iran have (had?) any sort of reasonable weaponry is from other countries slipping them arms and money on the sly.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't forget the Japan oil and steel embargo in 1941. Yeah, that worked.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on what you thought the goal of the embargo was, it sorta did. A lot of people think it was to force Japan into a war.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't forget the Japan oil and steel embargo in 1941. Yeah, that worked.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on what you thought the goal of the embargo was, it sorta did. A lot of people think it was to force Japan into a war.
Click to expand...

Embargo is not a sanction. And no sanctions only hurt the sactioner since others will be more than happy to oblige trade.
 
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Starve the people of that country more IMO, that's all it's ever accomplished.
Click to expand...

Yep. A perfect example of how ridiculous policies by the ruling elite affect no one other then the everyday guy on the street.
 
If the goal is to topple regimes they utterly fail. If it is to hurt the country as a whole or punish them for their decisions. I think there is room to say they have attained those goals.
 
For an example, look at Saddam. While economic sanctions didn't topple his regime, they certainly vastly reduced the amount of money he had to spend on his army, etc. They significantly contributed to him being unable to threaten his neighbors and helped to reduce his army to a shell of its former self.

Now sure they also contributed to the deaths of... well... a lot of people, but they did help contain him.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
topple castro: no
topple hussein: no
topple kim: no
topple the ayatollah: no

so, what have they done?
Click to expand...

With Kim they did - he traded his freedom of travel and bank accounts for janky nucular plant.
 
Well, yes and no. They can and will cripple a regime. The most comprehensive sanctions have been on Iraq and they did cripple the country. Most of the country was inaccessible to Saddam. All he had left was a small section, funded mostly by skimming the oil-for-food program for funds. North Korea is almost as comprehensive, but the problem there is China still helps them lest they get swarmed by refugees.

The problem is the regime itself will hang on until there isn't anyone left. They're used against brutal regimes, do you think they'll suddenly have a change of heart when their people suffer? On top of that, you'll rarely have a foreign force then go in and "finish the job" to get rid of the crippled country.

And worst of all, the country will now likely have a lot of animosity towards other countries. Afterall, from their perspective, they're the ones who let them suffer.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
For an example, look at Saddam. While economic sanctions didn't topple his regime, they certainly vastly reduced the amount of money he had to spend on his army, etc. They significantly contributed to him being unable to threaten his neighbors and helped to reduce his army to a shell of its former self.

Now sure they also contributed to the deaths of... well... a lot of people, but they did help contain him.
Click to expand...

And do you think it was worth it? How many is "a lot of people?"
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eskimospy
For an example, look at Saddam. While economic sanctions didn't topple his regime, they certainly vastly reduced the amount of money he had to spend on his army, etc. They significantly contributed to him being unable to threaten his neighbors and helped to reduce his army to a shell of its former self.

Now sure they also contributed to the deaths of... well... a lot of people, but they did help contain him.
Click to expand...

And do you think it was worth it? How many is "a lot of people?"
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it was worth it. Our policy on Iraq has been a mess ever since 1990. One of the stated goals of economic sanctions was to contain his ability to threaten his neighbors though, and they certainly did that.

I really can't remember the exact numbers of deaths that the sanctions were said to have indirectly caused. I do remember the number to be depressingly high though.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't forget the Japan oil and steel embargo in 1941. Yeah, that worked.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on what you thought the goal of the embargo was, it sorta did. A lot of people think it was to force Japan into a war.
Click to expand...

It undeniably was 🙂
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eskimospy
For an example, look at Saddam. While economic sanctions didn't topple his regime, they certainly vastly reduced the amount of money he had to spend on his army, etc. They significantly contributed to him being unable to threaten his neighbors and helped to reduce his army to a shell of its former self.

Now sure they also contributed to the deaths of... well... a lot of people, but they did help contain him.
Click to expand...

And do you think it was worth it? How many is "a lot of people?"
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it was worth it. Our policy on Iraq has been a mess ever since 1990. One of the stated goals of economic sanctions was to contain his ability to threaten his neighbors though, and they certainly did that.

I really can't remember the exact numbers of deaths that the sanctions were said to have indirectly caused. I do remember the number to be depressingly high though.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ

I am glad that you disagree with them. I do, too.

And when/if Obama places further/harsher sanctions on Iran, I will oppose that, too.
 
They don't work... usually, we seem to put sanctions on countries that have dictators that could give a shit about their people. All they care about are themselves and how much power they have.

The sanctions, sadly, affect the people not the dictator. The dictator can get what they want and live a wonderful life in spite of sanctions while the people of the country are further suppressed by sanctions. IMO they are usually only hurting helpless people more!
 
Originally posted by: dlx22
from personal observation they seem to hurt the general population more than the people creating the problem or ruling over said people. but that was a complete generalization on my part
Click to expand...

It sounds like they work on the assumption that the rulers care about the people he rules over...
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
they kept Hussein from developing WMD's > >
Click to expand...

What kept Saddam from developing WMDs was that the US stopped giving him the knowledge and the technology to develop WMDs.

I mean honestly, how much do you care about those Kurds he gassed and bombed in the 80s? If history played out slightly differently, you wouldn't either care or just gloss over the fact. Remember, he was our bestest buddy in the Middle East until he invaded Kuwait.

Economic sanctions work if the ruler gives a crap about the people. More often than not, they don't. Plus, it's applied in a haphazardly way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top