Sanctions disproportionately hurt innocent civilians. Sanctioning individuals is one thing but entire nations shouldn’t be sanctioned. I thought we learned our lesson from Cuba but apparently not
Edit: for all the neolibs and righties downvoting me, this probably won’t do much to convince you. For anyone else, here’s an explanation on why sanctions are a terrible idea:
Basically, the entire point of sanctions if to hurt civilians. The logic is supposed to be that they will rise up and force a political change due to being angry and, often, starving to death. But that rarely happens. We just end up torturing poor people while wealthy elites get by just fine.
The comment stated it is too late for diplomacy. That means inflicting suffering via outright war or passive actions like sanctions. Both are attacks on innocent civilians.
Ah yes, because telling Netanyahu “please don’t bomb children, that is not really nice” has worked out splendidly so far. Diplomacy without being able to put pressure on is nothing more than kindly asking.
Y’know what is the primary method to apply pressure in diplomacy? Sanctions.
History shows it’s never quite that clear cut. However that’s rather irrelevant. I’m asking when have US sanctions sparked a popular revolution that overthrew a government that was sanctioned?
It’s still inhumane. It’s fine to starve people out via sanctions but not via bombings? There’s a reason people like Sanders continue to oppose sanctions
Which means sanctions would motivate the voters to elect a new government that opposes genocide. Which is the result we want.
Therefore, sanctions are justified because they would stop Israel’s genocide of Gaza by forcing Israeli voters to face the consequence of voting for genocidal fascists
Why is everyone speaking in hypotheticals/theory? Sanctions have been used in the past. Has it achieved the desired result? If we don’t know, maybe start with that
Which would be better to you? You’re a civilian somewhere - do you prefer to watch your livelyhood slowly being destroyed by your government or do you want a boom?
I’d assume the former gives you a chance to recognize it and do something, the latter is just boom.
False dichotomy. Sanctions don’t stop genocidal maniacs. They just ADD suffering to the world. Would I rather have 1 million people suffer or 2 million? I know the answer!
An arms embargo restricts weapons sales and the like. Sanctions are designed to harm civilians. Suffering is the point. The (typically incorrect) idea is that suffering people will force political change. But again, that has rarely happened. People just end up suffering.
Sanctions disproportionately hurt innocent civilians. Sanctioning individuals is one thing but entire nations shouldn’t be sanctioned. I thought we learned our lesson from Cuba but apparently not
Edit: for all the neolibs and righties downvoting me, this probably won’t do much to convince you. For anyone else, here’s an explanation on why sanctions are a terrible idea:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sanctions-economy-foreign-policy/tnamp/
Here’s an in depth look at why sanctions fail:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539368
Basically, the entire point of sanctions if to hurt civilians. The logic is supposed to be that they will rise up and force a political change due to being angry and, often, starving to death. But that rarely happens. We just end up torturing poor people while wealthy elites get by just fine.
You know what hurts innocent civilians even more? Bombing them.
Y’know what avoids both options? Diplomacy.
That time has passed.
It was never given a chance
Ok, time for war? Sure thing, Macnamara
The discussion was literally about sanctions. Seems like a reasonable step compared to the “war” you immediately jump to, no?
The comment stated it is too late for diplomacy. That means inflicting suffering via outright war or passive actions like sanctions. Both are attacks on innocent civilians.
Ah yes, because telling Netanyahu “please don’t bomb children, that is not really nice” has worked out splendidly so far. Diplomacy without being able to put pressure on is nothing more than kindly asking.
Y’know what is the primary method to apply pressure in diplomacy? Sanctions.
Except they don’t work. Rarely have. All they do is torture innocent civilians and even then, really just the poor ones.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sanctions-economy-foreign-policy/tnamp/
A quick and easy summary
Isn’t that part of the point? If the populace suffers, government changes are more likely
When has that actually worked?
Apartheid south Africa
You’re suggesting that the end of Apartheid was caused solely by the US sanctions causing a popular revolt in South africa?
I did not mention it was solely due to sanctions. But I do think it played a role.
Arguably any revolution comes from a critical mass of the population being unhappy…
History shows it’s never quite that clear cut. However that’s rather irrelevant. I’m asking when have US sanctions sparked a popular revolution that overthrew a government that was sanctioned?
It’s still inhumane. It’s fine to starve people out via sanctions but not via bombings? There’s a reason people like Sanders continue to oppose sanctions
That’s the inhumane condition you care about? Not the 34000 dead? Murdering journalists, doctors, food workers? None of that?
Sanctions don’t stop that. So you have a genocide and a starving populace in a second country. JFC when did Lemmy turn into a bunch of neolibs?
Neoliberals are Zionists
Neoliberals love sanctions. Leftists typically oppose suffering.
Israel is a democracy, or so we have been told.
Which means sanctions would motivate the voters to elect a new government that opposes genocide. Which is the result we want.
Therefore, sanctions are justified because they would stop Israel’s genocide of Gaza by forcing Israeli voters to face the consequence of voting for genocidal fascists
Why is everyone speaking in hypotheticals/theory? Sanctions have been used in the past. Has it achieved the desired result? If we don’t know, maybe start with that
Which would be better to you? You’re a civilian somewhere - do you prefer to watch your livelyhood slowly being destroyed by your government or do you want a boom?
I’d assume the former gives you a chance to recognize it and do something, the latter is just boom.
False dichotomy. Sanctions don’t stop genocidal maniacs. They just ADD suffering to the world. Would I rather have 1 million people suffer or 2 million? I know the answer!
Sanctions have been used many times since Cuba with varying success.
I’d say this situation calls for them to protect other innocent civilians.
Varying success politically, yes. But it always damages innocent civilians.
Some forms of sanctions but how would something like an arms embargo hurt innocent civilians?
An arms embargo restricts weapons sales and the like. Sanctions are designed to harm civilians. Suffering is the point. The (typically incorrect) idea is that suffering people will force political change. But again, that has rarely happened. People just end up suffering.
An arms embargo are a type of sanction.
Yes, but when people sanction a country, they mean widespread economic sanctions.
https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance-hub/embargo-vs-sanction-understanding-international-trade-restrictions?hs_amp=true