Iran continues the moral crackdown.

[Gan]

Iran (http://get.lingospot.com/link/?@li2=2734&key=SVKEJENJ&ps_id=yOD1Os3T2v&q=QQ:lqOTqjptCQI_SHHZP{HORJJOASIOBADVOi@p0Jj_CSKVV&site_id=breitbart.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.breitbart.com%2Fq%3Fs%3D%2 2iran%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.com&url_key=403F934A&v=1&~boot=1193021691734)'s police are to keep up their moral crackdown through the winter months (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=), confronting couples (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) whose behaviour in public is deemed to be inappropriate, officials said on Sunday.


Iran in April launched what has proved to be its most severe moral crackdown in years, handing out warnings to thousands of people for dress deemed to be unIslamic and other outlawed behaviour.

In a sign of the seriousness of the drive, police are to continue the crackdown in winter, the Fars news agency reported, whereas in the past it has been restricted to the summer months (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) when dress is skimpier.

Ahmad Roozbehani, the head of the moral security police, was quoted as saying by the agency that his forces would be targeting "inappropriate" behaviour by couples in public, be they married or not.

"If someone is walking down the street with their legitimate partner, police will not ask for identification from them but if an obvious offence occurs or a report is received we will confront this.

"This also applies to the behaviour even of married couples (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=). They should not have inappropriate behaviour (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) and draw attention to themselves."

He did not give further details on the kind of behaviour proscribed but any kind of intimate cuddling between couples in public, let alone kissing, is a social taboo in Iran.
Holding hands has become acceptable in the Islamic republic (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=), so long as the partners are married. Theoretically, unmarried boys and girls should not hang out in public, although this is often flouted.

more...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071021141644.chgvhggx&show_article=1
__________________________________________________ _

Reminds me of high school where they didnt want anyone holding hands in the hallways.

I wonder if you'll have to have hall passes to be out on the streets soon?

[Warriorbird]

We can totally solve this by invading Iran! That'd be the best idea ever! Yesss!

[Gan]

We can totally solve this by invading Iran! That'd be the best idea ever! Yesss!

Your words, not mine.

[Warriorbird]

Then what's the point?

"Oh, the poor, poor, Iranians?"

You've been big on the propaganda lately. I haven't seen you talk about Darfur once. You've not mentioned the Nigerian oil issues.

Yet...Iran? Now serious business for Ganalon.

[Gan]

Funny, you havent posted anything about Darfur or the Nigerian oil issues either?

PS. This is a BBS.

If you want to discuss something, then START A FUCKING THREAD. Its really easy to do you know. ;)

[Warriorbird]

I haven't...because I don't suddenly feel the notion to "tout my humanitarian cred." IE, post propaganda for an Iran War.

This is a BBS. Sometimes you don't get the discussion you want.

[Tsa`ah]

Reminds me of high school where they didnt want anyone holding hands in the hallways.

I wonder if you'll have to have hall passes to be out on the streets soon?

Iran seems to be heading down the totalitarian police state road ... but there's nothing we can, or even should, do.

I don't like isolationism, but if the Iranian people want to be subjugated by religious law interpretative of crack pots ... then that's what's going to happen.

Our involvement over something like this would do more harm than good ... on either side.

[Gan]

Iran seems to be heading down the totalitarian police state road ... but there's nothing we can, or even should, do.

I don't like isolationism, but if the Iranian people want to be subjugated by religious law interpretative of crack pots ... then that's what's going to happen.

Our involvement over something like this would do more harm than good ... on either side.

/Agreed.

I'm curious as to what point will be 'enough' or the tipping point. This kinda serves as an interesting test case for exactly how far a government can suppress its populace before there is a backlsh, and exactly what kind of response can be predicted. Especially from a populace that has experienced an overthrow as recent as Iran has.

In that spirit I can see America just doing nothing more than what we already are, thus indirectly causing the current Iranian leadership to overstep its bounds with its own populace without even a single shot being fired towards Iran by the American military.

[Gan]

I haven't...because I don't suddenly feel the notion to "tout my humanitarian cred." IE, post propaganda for an Iran War.

This is a BBS. Sometimes you don't get the discussion you want.

Who said I was touting my humanitarian creedo?

Perhaps you've made the wrong assumption about this thread. When you have the guts to start a thread about Darfur or Nigerian Oil, then you may or may not enjoy my participation in such thread. Otherwise, feel free to continue pissing in the wind. Either way just quit complaining about getting wet.

;)

[Tsa`ah]

I'm curious as to what point will be 'enough' or the tipping point. This kinda serves as an interesting test case for exactly how far a government can suppress its populace before there is a backlsh, and exactly what kind of response can be predicted. Especially from a populace that has experienced an overthrow as recent as Iran has.

Well if the overthrow of Pahlavi is a close enough measuring stick ... about 38 years. So maybe we'll see the noticeable rumblings in the next few years.


In that spirit I can see America just doing nothing more than what we already are, thus indirectly causing the current Iranian leadership to overstep its bounds with its own populace without even a single shot being fired towards Iran by the American military.

I agree to an extent. I don't agree that this is a US issue, it's a global issue. In order to do anything, the world (or most of it) has to be at least on the same chapter. This won't happen, especially in the Middle East.

More sanctions could be imposed with attached demands, but there are too many nations that will let their industry move where the government will not (ourselves included).

I think outside of it's posturing, Iran isn't much of a threat to the world. They're a huge threat to our troops in the region ... which should be enough ... but I'm still far more concerned with our "allies" in the region than I am the opposition.

[vorlash]

I think that's precisely the point. As long as Iranian do it to their own people and not anyone else in the region, I think American involvement will be minimal at best. The occasional arms deal to the lesser evil of the factions within Iran would probably be the extent.

That said, when a shit storm brews in the middle east, it has a tendency to spill over silly things like borders and involve more than one sovereign nation. At that point, America will likely step in and say "No."

[TheEschaton]

That's why sanctions are becoming more and more obsolete. Corporations can and do operate outside the parameters of international law. International law is sadly largely nation-state based, and not individual actor based.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

I think that's precisely the point. As long as Iranian do it to their own people and not anyone else in the region, I think American involvement will be minimal at best.


"And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that… Oh help yourself, y'know, we've been trying to kill you for ages, so kill your own people, right on then…Hitler killed people next door. Oh… stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" Izzard

[vorlash]

"And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that… Oh help yourself, y'know, we've been trying to kill you for ages, so kill your own people, right on then…Hitler killed people next door. Oh… stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" Izzard

I absolutely loved that cross-dresser and his stand up routines. I think american foreign policy should be dictated by him.

[Daniel]

That's why sanctions are becoming more and more obsolete. Corporations can and do operate outside the parameters of international law. International law is sadly largely nation-state based, and not individual actor based.

-TheE-

Sanctions have always been a stupid, wishful thinking way of doing shit.

[Parkbandit]

Sanctions have always been a stupid, wishful thinking way of doing shit.


Well.. except for all the times they work.

[Daniel]

Which has been when?

[Tsa`ah]

Agreed, point out when sanctions have actually had the desired result.

Answer ... they don't because there's little follow through and massive "undermining".

[TheEschaton]

Hell, our own American companies undermined our sanctions against Iraq, keeping Saddam rich and fat in all his palaces, while the Iraqi people starved and died of common illnesses.



Predicted PB response post: "Waaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaa, cry me a fucking river, you liberal pussy!!"

I can make this prediction because he'll get so angry after the first sentence that he won't read the rest of my post.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Hell, our own American companies undermined our sanctions against Iraq, keeping Saddam rich and fat in all his palaces, while the Iraqi people starved and died of common illnesses.



Predicted PB response post: "Waaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaaa, cry me a fucking river, you liberal pussy!!"

I can make this prediction because he'll get so angry after the first sentence that he won't read the rest of my post.

-TheE-


You don't have to be clairvoyant to know you are a liberal pussy... but I actually agree with you to a point. I don't think it was as much US companies undermining our sanctions as it was other countries doing it, led by the UN.

[Parkbandit]

Agreed, point out when sanctions have actually had the desired result.

Answer ... they don't because there's little follow through and massive "undermining".


They aren't perfect.. but they do harm the country in which they are targetting.

North Korea
Cuba
Libya

Sanctions don't work overnight.. but they can be effective in the long run. Of course, in the case of Cuba.. they can also be retarded in the long run.

[chillmonster]

Sanctions can not work in Iran while there's a superpower 2 billion strong all too willing to do business with them.

[Tsa`ah]

They aren't perfect.. but they do harm the country in which they are targetting.

North Korea
Cuba
Libya

Sanctions don't work overnight.. but they can be effective in the long run. Of course, in the case of Cuba.. they can also be retarded in the long run.

Eh, those examples are better served counter to your argument.

About the only ill effect Libya felt from sanctions were having to actually pay a pittance for the utilities that were once provided by the government. Libya actually went through economic booms in growth during the entire duration of sanctions .... largely due to US and European businesses that utilized indirect means of doing business.

N Korea? About the only countries that acknowledged embargoes against them were western ... the rest of the world went on as usual. That didn't stop businesses from treating them like another Libya.

Cuba? I would give you that example, except that sanctions against Cuba limit what? Cigars and vacations? Cuba's woes are the result of Cuba being a borderline third world country with an inept government ... not because we don't allow cruise ships to include Cuba in their offerings.

[chillmonster]

Sanctions can't work today. The threat worked in S.A., but the most of the countries they did business with and ALL of those the S.A. government held in high esteem were not happy with their Apartheid system. The Cuban embargo was irrelevant while the Soviets were supplying Castro; and while China is willing to do business with any country that can contribute to their growth, there's really no point in sanctions anywhere.

If Cuba discovers oil tomorrow, they'll either be invaded by us or revitalized by trade with China.

[Daniel]

They aren't perfect.. but they do harm the country in which they are targetting.

North Korea
Cuba
Libya

Sanctions don't work overnight.. but they can be effective in the long run. Of course, in the case of Cuba.. they can also be retarded in the long run.

LOLZ

[Parkbandit]

LOLZ

you should stick with topics pertaining to blacks being victims.. since at least there you actually put some thought (be it stupid) into your posts.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, I believe he's laughing because your examples and premise are stupid.

Sanctions under whacko dictators don't really hurt anyone except the least well off people living in the country sanctioned. In our roundabout thinking, we obviously espouse that the people will RAISE up! and take over the government because they're unhappy (RHAR!). Unfortunately, with have-not nations, those people don't have the guns. Others already mentioned trade. The only thing sanctions really accomplish is making a country weak for an expanding nation or a NEW whacko dictator. But hell, I know how you love nation building PB.

Don't believe me?
If you look at the Iraq sanctions, for instance, their effect was to obliterate things like Saddam's mandatory literacy programs and infrastructure expansion. Saddam, however, was still living it up, as were the bigwigs close to him.

[Clove]

If Cuba discovers oil tomorrow, they'll either be invaded by us or revitalized by trade with China.

Right because we can't block trade to and from an island country 90 miles off our coast.

[Tsa`ah]

We certainly could, but would you want an armed conflict that couldn't be disguised as anything but a war for oil?

We couldn't stop the Soviets at the cost of war, do you think we'd stop China? Considering we haven't ... the answer is no.

[Clove]

We certainly could, but would you want an armed conflict that couldn't be disguised as anything but a war for oil?

We couldn't stop the Soviets at the cost of war, do you think we'd stop China? Considering we haven't ... the answer is no.

Ah, arm-chair generals. It would depend on more specifics than what happend 40 years ago with a different country. The point is an embargo against Cuba is an option, even against China.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ah, arm-chair generals. It would depend on more specifics than what happend 40 years ago with a different country. The point is an embargo against Cuba is an option, even against China.

Right. You don't happen to eat any manufactured foods/wear clothing, do you?

I regret to inform you that not everyone can prance around spearing vorpal catfish like Artha in the comfort of their handmade leaf skippies.

[Tsa`ah]

Ah, arm-chair generals. It would depend on more specifics than what happend 40 years ago with a different country. The point is an embargo against Cuba is an option, even against China.

Do your really believe that ... if so you answered Chill's question rather soundly.

Since I have this belief that you're not that retarded, I'll not go into current trade trends with China, China's history with Cuba, international ... or Cuban waters.

[chillmonster]

Right because we can't block trade to and from an island country 90 miles off our coast.

You're the stupidest bastard on the planet. If China wanted to trade with Cuba, they'd send their own boats to the island. How do you think the'd feel about US carriers and battleships turning their ships away?

And the Soviets traded away with Cuba for years. What makes you think we'd stop China when most of our business commiunity has a vested interest in our having good relations with Beijing?

[Tsa`ah]

Oddly enough ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14095881/

[Stanley Burrell]

Oddly enough ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14095881/

IMHO, it would sort of be awesome if they globalized it; I mean, they are commies, right? :rolleyes:

[Clove]

Right. You don't happen to eat any manufactured foods/wear clothing, do you?

I regret to inform you that not everyone can prance around spearing vorpal catfish like Artha in the comfort of their handmade leaf skippies.

Yeah you're right, China doesn't benefit in their trade with us at all, and we'd all probably starve and freeze to death without them.

[chillmonster]

So China AND Canada are prospecting in Cuban waters?

[Tsa`ah]

The cool thing about Clove is that he brings his own shovel.

[Clove]

You're the stupidest bastard on the planet. If China wanted to trade with Cuba, they'd send their own boats to the island. How do you think the'd feel about US carriers and battleships turning their ships away?

And the Soviets traded away with Cuba for years. What makes you think we'd stop China when most of our business commiunity has a vested interest in our having good relations with Beijing?

Oil.

[chillmonster]

The cool thing about Clove is that he brings his own shovel.

If he had used sound logic but come to the wrong conclusion, it would be one thing, but he just pulls this stuff out of his ass.

He's so mistaken and so sure. It's comical.

[Tsa`ah]

Oil.

That hole is getting deeper ...

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah you're right, China doesn't benefit in their trade with us at all, and we'd all probably starve and freeze to death without them.

It's a double-edged sword either way.

I mean, honestly, how will the average American keep their freshly-ripped youngins warm without the help of name brand Chinese designer blankets? :(

::shudder::

[Clove]

And if a large exploitable oil reserve is possible in Cuba keeping the embargo up would be too costly a policy- not because we can't turn ships away from an island off our own shore; but because WE could use the oil.

The situation between our relationship with the Soviets in the 60's and our relationship with China today isn't remotely comparible.

[Clove]

That hole is getting deeper ...

Oh I'm not worried Tsa'ah old boy; I know if you disagree with my posts strongly enough you'll just delete them. Oh, no wait, you can't do that anymore.

[Clove]

It's a double-edged sword either way.

Precisely the point Tsa'ah and Chill-lash seem to be missing.

[Tsa`ah]

And if a large exploitable oil reserve is possible in Cuba keeping the embargo up would be too costly a policy- not because we can't turn ships away from an island off our own shore; but because WE could use the oil.

The situation between our relationship with the Soviets in the 60's and our relationship with China today isn't remotely comparible.

No one compared them other than you.

Maybe bone up on your history and recognize the long standing relationship between Cuba and China?

Maybe not be retarded and think we're going to blockade a sovereign nation over it's oil and threaten the existing trade relations we have established?

The cold war is over and the red scare is dead. US sympathy went up like a flash in the pan .... and our list of real, and capable, allies happens to be pretty short and thin. The US blockading Cuban oil exports would see more than sanctions against the US.

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but almost every single word you have posted to this topic has been nothing more than moronic drivel based on nothing more than your desire for a bandwagon seat.

[Clove]

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but almost every single word you have posted to this topic has been nothing more than moronic drivel based on nothing more than your desire for a bandwagon seat.

I wasn't the one to bring up the Soviets as a comparison Chill-lash was, read. My opinion is that embargoing Cuba even over oil, even against China is entirely possible; which despite your bizarre notions doesn't imply I'm unaware of China's historic relationship with Cuba. It also doesn't imply that I'm unaware of the stakes- but let's be clear China doesn't want to go to war with the US any more than the US wants to go to war with China. In a lightning strike of lucidity Stanley said it best, "it's a two edged sword".

Finally you have absolutely no insight into my motivations for my opinions. I can assure you it has nothing to do with bandwagon seats.

[chillmonster]

And if a large exploitable oil reserve is possible in Cuba keeping the embargo up would be too costly a policy- not because we can't turn ships away from an island off our own shore; but because WE could use the oil.

The situation between our relationship with the Soviets in the 60's and our relationship with China today isn't remotely comparible.

You just did a 180. We've just gone from continuing the embargo with force to ending it.

And the biggest difference between in our relationships with China and the USSR is we now have an influential business community that is making billions in China. We will not take aggressive action against China. Stop smoking crack.

Edited to add:

And why are you posting on this topic since you're obviously too clueless to be interested in this.

[Clove]

You just did a 180. We've just gone from continuing the embargo with force to ending it.

And the biggest difference between in our relationships with China and the USSR is we now have an influential business community that is making billions in China. We will not take aggressive action against China. Stop smoking crack.

And what do you think China is getting out of it dumbass?

[Tsa`ah]

Oh I'm not worried Tsa'ah old boy; I know if you disagree with my posts strongly enough you'll just delete them. Oh, no wait, you can't do that anymore.

So you're Psykos now?

If that's the best you have ... take a break, take some lessons, take some meds.

You're inability to digest your own bullshit is pretty comical.


And what do you think China is getting out of it dumbass?

Are you seriously this stupid?

Wait ... don't answer that.

[Clove]

So you're Psykos now?

If that's the best you have ... take a break, take some lessons, take some meds.

You're inability to digest your own bullshit is pretty comical.

You're inability to argue intelligently is comical. China benifits from our business relationship every bit as much as we do.

[Tsa`ah]

You're inability to argue intelligently is comical. China benifits from our business relationship every bit as much as we do.

You do realize your initial argument isn't your current argument? Your current argument falls in line with what some of have already said .... and I have an inability to argue intelligently?

What percentage of if China's total exports go to the US (and fyi .... the walmart share is larger internationally than it is domestically). China could survive without US trade ... and there's a line of nations on China's doorstep to willing to prove that.

China is not going to back away from Cuban oil because the US wants it ... they're likely to respond in kind and with help at the first sign of a US blockade.

Shall we revisit your point? Or did you (hastily and voluntarily) forget it already?

[Clove]

Shall we revisit your point? Or did you (hastily and voluntarily) forget it already?

I haven't forgotten it at all. Go ahead and prove the China wouldn't suffer as much if not more by destroying trade relationships. There may be a line of nations at China's doorstep- no wait, they aren't at China's doorstep, they're trading with China already.

My original point was that we could most certainly maintain a blockade against Cuba, even against China under certain circumstances. You and Chill-lash seem to be of the OMFG it's CHINAAAAAAH camp.

[chillmonster]

Libya and NK are two examples that show just how little China worries about America's opinion of their trade partners.

[Tsa`ah]

Holy inability to stick to your buns batman.

[Clove]

Libya and NK are two examples that show just how little China worries about America's opinion of their trade partners.

What like NK shutting down their nuclear program and China hosting the discussions over its details?

[chillmonster]

What like NK shutting down their nuclear program and China hosting the discussions over its details?

No. Like China propping up a hostile regime for 40 years. Idiot.

[Clove]

No. Like China propping up a hostile regime for 40 years. Idiot.

And yet China has helped us convince NK to stop building nukes I wonder why the change... :thinking:

[Daniel]

you should stick with topics pertaining to blacks being victims.. since at least there you actually put some thought (be it stupid) into your posts.

Yes, because claiming that our sanctions have convinced Cuba of the error of their ways is such an intelligent thought.

[Daniel]

And yet China has helped us convince NK to stop building nukes I wonder why the change... :thinking:

Because they'd have to deal with a massive influx of North Korean refugees if and when we bomb the shit out of it.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, because claiming that our sanctions have convinced Cuba of the error of their ways is such an intelligent thought.

Cuba wanted nuclear weapons on their island. We blockaded them and prevented them from gaining access to them. Their economy is in shambles, thanks to our sanctions. I personally think they've gone on long enough... and that if we're willing to trade with China, why not Cuba?

Libya has been under sanctions for years and have since been 'convinced of the error of their ways'. It looks like N. Korea is now doing the same.

Sanctions are never perfect.. especially in today's world. It's a last attempt at diplomacy.

[Daniel]

Umm....

Correction: Russia wanted Nuclear weapons in Cuba and they *had* nuclear weapons in Cuba. They were pulled out because it almost triggered armegeddan, not because of sanctions. Their Economy is not in shambles, it's just not an American economy. Their health care is arguably as good as ours and they have created a sustainable agricultural system that many believe will be the basis for the world model once we start exhausting our resources in a few hundred years.

Even still, they have managed to hold onto a communist system 90 miles off our coast far longer than Russia *and* China and we're no closer to getting rid of it than we were in the 1960's. Oh yea, sanctions. A+

Libya? They're pretty much told us to go screw ourselves, and continue to do so today. The only reason they toned down the "Haven of Terrorist" thing is because we threatened to bomb them into the stone age. The only reason why relations are warming today is because the man's son is starting to exert himself, and he's too much of a playboy to go without western luxuries.

North Korea? They don't give a shit if we starve them. They get enough from their illegal endeavors, like printing US money, and really couldn't give two fucks about their people. In fact, our sanctions only give them a legitimate political vehicle from which to sustain their regime, as anything the peaseants get is seen as in the face of America's best efforts to screw them over.

As for them coming over to our side? Yea, sure. After we basically gave them everything they wanted. Good job.

Once again, Sanctions A+.

Of ALL the countries you could have picked, it baffles me that you would be pick Libya, North Korea, and CUBA.

[Stanley Burrell]

^

That and WE SHOULD BOMB DBJIBOUTI. Fgghththghhttttasdfgh.

[Stanley Burrell]

Djibouti is an imminent nuke-u-lar threat, yo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Djibouti)

[Daniel]

PB...You there? Hello....hellllllooooooooo

[Warriorbird]

I heard tell that the Djibouti army does nothing but sit around and smoke up and listen to A Tribe Called Quest all day. Clearly they must be stopped.

[Gan]

BUT WHAT ABOUT DARFUR?

MOTHERFUCKERS!

[Gan]

Oh and...

http://www.catfo.com/wp-content/uploads/socks_cat_1.jpg

[Parkbandit]

PB...You there? Hello....hellllllooooooooo


I realize you hang on my every word.. sorry, I was busy last night. Here you go, feel free to frame it above your bed.

Cuba: So only Russia wanted nuclear weapons on Cuba.. Cuba didn't? Oh.. please post the source of this because we would all love to hear it. They have a good economy as well? Oh damn, post that source as well.

Libya: They have stopped publicly trying to attain WMD and have allowed inspectors into their country for the first time in ages.. all due to our sanctions and other diplomatic pressures. We've been saying we would bomb them into the stone age for decades... that didn't bring about the most recent changes.

N. Korea: They also have said (and yea, I know they have said this before) that they are willing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly we will give in to their blackmail threat.. but it was our economic sanctions that are making them even consider doing it.

No one, not even me, said Sanctions are the best diplomatic effort to bring about changes in other governments.. but I'm not stupid enough to believe they also have zero impact.. which is what you are trying to say. Sanctions can be somewhat successful if they are used in conjunction with other diplomatic pressures and the threat of military action.

[Warriorbird]

Mission accomplished!

[Daniel]

Lolz.

How long have we had sanctions in those three countries?

[Tsa`ah]

Cuba: So only Russia wanted nuclear weapons on Cuba.. Cuba didn't? Oh.. please post the source of this because we would all love to hear it. They have a good economy as well? Oh damn, post that source as well.

Libya: They have stopped publicly trying to attain WMD and have allowed inspectors into their country for the first time in ages.. all due to our sanctions and other diplomatic pressures. We've been saying we would bomb them into the stone age for decades... that didn't bring about the most recent changes.

N. Korea: They also have said (and yea, I know they have said this before) that they are willing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly we will give in to their blackmail threat.. but it was our economic sanctions that are making them even consider doing it.

You keep listing these three nations as positive examples of sanctions ... you really need to investigate past whatever biased source you're using.

Sanctions against Cuba have done exactly what? Nothing resembling the intent that's for sure. Fidel is still in power, they're still "communists", oh ... and Fidel is still in power.

Have our sanctions hurt the regime? No. Have our sanctions made the lives of the general populace of Cuba hell ... yes. Yay for sanctions?

As I stated previously, our sanctions killed cigars and tourism ... it's not like they had a booming productive economy prior to sanctions. Though once they start offshore drilling ... they're going to flip us the bird while selling their oil to China at a premium.

Lybia's uranium enrichment programs were a partnership with Pakistan ... good sanctions huh? Lybia's agreement to dismantle had nothing to do with Bush, Iraq, or sanctions ... considering the sanctions did nothing to their economy or their government. Lybia's agreement to dismantle was the product of 10 years work on the part of Europe and the UN ... not the US.

Reagan went after Gaddafi because of Gaddafi's brother (lockerbie) and ultimately because Gaddafi kicked the US and GB out of Lybia when he came to power ... not anything Lybia had done. The whole administration tried their best to make all the ties they could, but in the end settled for Omar because he wouldn't give up his brother ... who wasn't even in Lybia. They missed, Omar was pissed. Lybia was named a terrorist state because they wouldn't roll over, they wouldn't play ball.

SANCTION THEM.

It had no impact on Lybia outside of who could enter Lybia without their own government throwing them in jail (read US citizens).

Do you honestly believe N. Korea gives a shit about our economic sanctions against them? Give me a break. Our track record of economic sanctions against nations with semi-capable governments is laughable. So they can't do business with the US directly ... they'll do business with middle man instead ... and continue with what they were doing.


No one, not even me, said Sanctions are the best diplomatic effort to bring about changes in other governments.. but I'm not stupid enough to believe they also have zero impact.. which is what you are trying to say. Sanctions can be somewhat successful if they are used in conjunction with other diplomatic pressures and the threat of military action.

US imposed sanctions are a joke unless there's military backing in the form of border patrolling and blockades. Since we only half assed achieved anything in the way of Iraq before the war ... sanctions are pretty worthless.

[Parkbandit]

Look at the economys of the 3 countries I mentioned. Most of that destruction was caused by US led sanctions.

[Tsa`ah]

Look at the economys of the 3 countries I mentioned. Most of that destruction was caused by US led sanctions.

Lybia - Large scale economic growth under sanctions.
N Korea - Where's the destruction?
Cuba - What economy was there to destroy?

[Gan]

Interesting outline of the sanctions we have imposed on NK, historical to present:
http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/sanctions/NorthKorea-EconomicSanctions.pdf


The efficacy of sanctions against NK: white paper.
http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/sanctions/Elliott.html


Index:
http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/sanctions/


This one looks like a good reference for efficacy of sanctions on China:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2004.00640.x
(if anyone has a blackwell synergy logon perhaps they could post the article)

[Daniel]

lolz @ Pb.

[Parkbandit]

Lybia - Large scale economic growth under sanctions.
N Korea - Where's the destruction?
Cuba - What economy was there to destroy?


Are you serious? North Korea is in shambles economically. I'm not saying that sanctions caused all of their economic issues, but can you look at North Korea and South Korea and say they are even close?

Do you honestly believe that Cuba would be in the weak economic shape they are in today if Castro hadn't taken over the country 50 years ago? A quick google search of Cuba+sanctions+effects reveals plenty of effects.. from poor water quality, cruel economic ruin to preventing womans rights.. and these are from pro-cuban points of view.

Libya recently opened up their country to UN inspectors in return for the dropping of the sanctions. Seems to me that if sanctions had no effect as you are saying... why would they make such a deal?

Again.. just so we make it perfectly clear since you and Daniel seem to miss this important point: I am not saying sanctions are perfect and that they are the sole reason why the countries we impose them upon have problems... but your presumption that sanctions have zero impact on countries is ignorant given the power of the US economy in the world.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you serious? North Korea is in shambles economically. I'm not saying that sanctions caused all of their economic issues, but can you look at North Korea and South Korea and say they are even close?

I can look at North Korea and say that US sanctions, no matter the quantity of teeth, have a negligible impact. Our sanctions in conjunction with the sanctions of other nations have had impact ... namely those imposed by Japan.


Do you honestly believe that Cuba would be in the weak economic shape they are in today if Castro hadn't taken over the country 50 years ago? A quick google search of Cuba+sanctions+effects reveals plenty of effects.. from poor water quality, cruel economic ruin to preventing womans rights.. and these are from pro-cuban points of view.

Cuba, prior to Castro, was propped up by the US. There wasn't much of an economy to begin with ... as I've been saying.

The desired effect of US sanctions against Cuba were for Fidel to step in line, drop communism, or for Fidel to be deposed. Instead we have Fidel and his regime still in power and a borderline third world nation for the rest of the population. Without sanctions, and just not propping Cuba up ... things wouldn't be much different today. The only effect Cuban sanctions have had are upon the general populace's quality of life ... and a huge massing of vintage (in working order) cars.

As I also said, this will change very rapidly once they begin offshore drilling ... and flip us the bird.


Libya recently opened up their country to UN inspectors in return for the dropping of the sanctions. Seems to me that if sanctions had no effect as you are saying... why would they make such a deal?

Did you not read? Our sanctions (US) had zero ... that's 0 ... impact on Lybia. They prospered under US sanctions. They were never a terrorist state. Most of those claims, and claims against human rights, were pretty unsubstantiated. Going into Iraq, or any US action had little to nothing to do with the decision to allow inspectors in. We, the US, have been nothing more than a speed bump to Lybia outside of Reagan's airstrike.

Lybia's nuclear proliferation program was an effort in conjunction with one of OUR allies ... Pakistan. Pakistan recognized the hell out of our sanctions didn't they ... as much as anyone else not the US.

US businesses ignored the sanctions in the same way everyone else did.

The UN and Europe have been talking with Lybia for the last 5 and 10 years. Why dismantle? Because it removes speed bumps, makes things easier.

Lybia was never a terrorist state, Lybia has never been a haven for Islam, radical or otherwise. Lybia was sanctioned because Lybia wouldn't play fetch ... Lybia continued to prosper despite how they were categorized and pretty much in spite of sanctions.

[Parkbandit]

Did you not read? Our sanctions (US) had zero ... that's 0 ... impact on Lybia. They prospered under US sanctions. They were never a terrorist state. Most of those claims, and claims against human rights, were pretty unsubstantiated. Going into Iraq, or any US action had little to nothing to do with the decision to allow inspectors in. We, the US, have been nothing more than a speed bump to Lybia outside of Reagan's airstrike.

Lybia's nuclear proliferation program was an effort in conjunction with one of OUR allies ... Pakistan. Pakistan recognized the hell out of our sanctions didn't they ... as much as anyone else not the US.

US businesses ignored the sanctions in the same way everyone else did.

The UN and Europe have been talking with Lybia for the last 5 and 10 years. Why dismantle? Because it removes speed bumps, makes things easier.

Lybia was never a terrorist state, Lybia has never been a haven for Islam, radical or otherwise. Lybia was sanctioned because Lybia wouldn't play fetch ... Lybia continued to prosper despite how they were categorized and pretty much in spite of sanctions.


First.. for fuck sake, learn to spell Libya.

Second.. I'm done debating this with you and Daniel. I can't even believe you would say Libya was never a terrorist state.. that type of ignorance I can't even debate.

I bow out to your own self dillusions. You and TheE should get along well.

[Tsa`ah]

Describe in what way they were a terrorist state.

[Gan]

On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5425.htm

[Daniel]

Repeating yourself over again doesn't constitute debating PB.

Sanctions are a tool, used to ellicit an end. Those ends were not met in either Cuba, Libya, or North Korea. They were accomplished through other means, or in most cases, not at all. Therefore, sanctions are absolutely worthless and in addition they often times undermine our foreign policy more than they promote it.

[Parkbandit]

Repeating yourself over again doesn't constitute debating PB.

Sanctions are a tool, used to ellicit an end. Those ends were not met in either Cuba, Libya, or North Korea. They were accomplished through other means, or in most cases, not at all. Therefore, sanctions are absolutely worthless and in addition they often times undermine our foreign policy more than they promote it.

We're going to have to disagree and leave it at that... since you are simply repeating your stance.

[Parkbandit]

Describe in what way they were a terrorist state.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/1.jpg

You are right.. LYBIA was never a terrorist state... but I was talking about Libya.

[Tsa`ah]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/1.jpg

You are right.. LYBIA was never a terrorist state... but I was talking about Libya.

Care to actually read up on it. Libya was never connected to the bombing. A Libyan intelligence officer was connected ... but prosecutors never once even suggested Libyan government was involved, let alone Gadhafi.

Libya has taken responsibility, but has not accepted guilt ... nor have they been accused.

The label "terrorist state" was pretty much implemented to justify sanctions. "Won't play ball" doesn't fly so well with the public.

Connecting acts of terrorism to Libya have been shaky at best. Also consider that when any act of terrorism happens, there are plenty of real terrorist groups that make it a foot race to claim. Libya has never claimed responsibility for any.

I'm sorry the 80's and Reaganism brain washed you ... but you rely on administrative claims that offer no proof, let alone solid reasoning.

This is called gullibility.