Menendez is a hateful coward, who while living comfortably in the US, hates the Castros so much that he is willing, even eager, to impose endless suffering on his own Cuban people. And then, to apply the same hate-based policies to other parts of the world.
Good question, Nate. I'm not sure about the role of sanctions in Myanmar. South Africa is often cited as a rare example of sanctions actually accomplishing their goal, but there's reason to doubt they actually played a critical role in ending apartheid, and that other forces, dynamics and trends that were already present were responsible. Here's an interesting look at that question. http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf
To what is perhaps your broader implied point, in researching my article, I encountered arguments that economic sanctions could be justified if the population in question is actively asking other countries to sanction their country.
That could be a difficult principle to put into practice—given the difficulty in ascertaining the wishes of of a foreign population. It's also morally problematic in that, even if a majority asked to be subjected to economic warfare, it's likely some substantial minority wouldn't want that. (And I think it's safe to say a majority of Iranians oppose U.S. sanctions.)
Though I can't see a sound moral argument for broad economic sanctions, I distinguish them from sanctions that target individual government officials, which I think are moral if the targets are chosen justly.
Setting aside the question of whether Iran even has nuclear weapon ambitions (which may be the subject of a future article here), what solution are you referring to?
Chamberlain appeased the aggressor in his time, Hitler. In our time, the aggressors, those who are being appeased, are the USA globally, and Israel in the Mideast.
I reject preemptive war, if that's what you're getting at. And the stark reality is that the leading aggressor in the region has been the U.S./Saudi Arabia/Israel alliance.
We're supposed to be shocked that Iran seeks to exert influence in its own neighborhood (without invading anyone in modern history), but completely at peace with the U.S. government's endless, catastrophic regime change invasions and sponsorship of insurgencies 10,000 miles from its shores.
Note that U.S. intervention has strengthened Iran's influence in its region, by replacing Saddam Hussein with an Iran-allied government, and by sponsoring terrorists-in-freedom-fighters'-clothing in Syria, which pushed Syria closer to Iran.
Individual Americans should be grateful Iran and Russia helped defeat ISIS and the al Qaeda affiliates who were the beneficiaries of the US/Saudi/Israeli regime change scheme. That doesn't mean Russia's and Iran's governments are virtuous, but there's no denying their involvement in Syria was beneficial in thwarting surging U.S.-enabled Salafist terrorism.
Menendez is a hateful coward, who while living comfortably in the US, hates the Castros so much that he is willing, even eager, to impose endless suffering on his own Cuban people. And then, to apply the same hate-based policies to other parts of the world.
Aren't sanctions how we got rid of apartheid South Africa? And how we got Myanmar to open up in the first place?
Good question, Nate. I'm not sure about the role of sanctions in Myanmar. South Africa is often cited as a rare example of sanctions actually accomplishing their goal, but there's reason to doubt they actually played a critical role in ending apartheid, and that other forces, dynamics and trends that were already present were responsible. Here's an interesting look at that question. http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf
To what is perhaps your broader implied point, in researching my article, I encountered arguments that economic sanctions could be justified if the population in question is actively asking other countries to sanction their country.
That could be a difficult principle to put into practice—given the difficulty in ascertaining the wishes of of a foreign population. It's also morally problematic in that, even if a majority asked to be subjected to economic warfare, it's likely some substantial minority wouldn't want that. (And I think it's safe to say a majority of Iranians oppose U.S. sanctions.)
Though I can't see a sound moral argument for broad economic sanctions, I distinguish them from sanctions that target individual government officials, which I think are moral if the targets are chosen justly.
Interesting article. I dislike sanctions because they don't work. Israel has the correct solution to keeping Iran from spreading nuclear weapons.
Why Israel has the right acquire nuclear, chemical, and biological programs? Who or what make Zionist Nazis above all nations?
Setting aside the question of whether Iran even has nuclear weapon ambitions (which may be the subject of a future article here), what solution are you referring to?
Destroying Iran's nuclear facility.
Same as destroy Israel nuclear facities.
Out of the immoral sanctions frying pan and into the unjust war/civilian-irradiating fire you go.
So you would agree with Chamberlain's actions in the 1930s?
Chamberlain appeased the aggressor in his time, Hitler. In our time, the aggressors, those who are being appeased, are the USA globally, and Israel in the Mideast.
I reject preemptive war, if that's what you're getting at. And the stark reality is that the leading aggressor in the region has been the U.S./Saudi Arabia/Israel alliance.
We're supposed to be shocked that Iran seeks to exert influence in its own neighborhood (without invading anyone in modern history), but completely at peace with the U.S. government's endless, catastrophic regime change invasions and sponsorship of insurgencies 10,000 miles from its shores.
Note that U.S. intervention has strengthened Iran's influence in its region, by replacing Saddam Hussein with an Iran-allied government, and by sponsoring terrorists-in-freedom-fighters'-clothing in Syria, which pushed Syria closer to Iran.
Individual Americans should be grateful Iran and Russia helped defeat ISIS and the al Qaeda affiliates who were the beneficiaries of the US/Saudi/Israeli regime change scheme. That doesn't mean Russia's and Iran's governments are virtuous, but there's no denying their involvement in Syria was beneficial in thwarting surging U.S.-enabled Salafist terrorism.