I was watching the news today before work. They were doing a post-post-debate re-recap of the Democratic and Republican debates which happened a week ago and five days ago, respectively.
Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Bill Richardson in latent response to the Republican sentiment (remember, kids: all does not mean each. Ron Paul 2008!) that a nuclear showdown with Iran is a real possibility. Richardson asserted that, while it is not, America should do its part by organizing and international coalition to level sanctions against the theocratic semi-democracy.
Oh yes, Bill, because sanctions have worked so well for the United States. America has been sanctioning countries for year to no avail. Fidel Castro, devil that he is, has maintained his place in Cuban government despite both sanctions and his waning health. Saddam Hussein maintained his power despite multi-lateral sanctions against his secular pseudodemocracy.
Is it just coincidence, Bill, that nations which we sanction stay enemies? Is it merely happenstance that the leaders of states cut off from the rest of the world maintain an unquestioned monarchy?
Of course not! The reason is very clear. No matter what the conditions, people always manage to get by. So, if they get by without the help of the United States, then it's quite obvious to the people of the nation in question that they don't need the help of the United States. If a state can get by without the help of most of the world, then the people of the state will believe (logically so) that their state only needs itself to function, allowing a tyrannical despot to align himself against whatever nation he wishes because, with the boost in national esteem given by its self reliance, the people of the state will believe that their state, which is self-sufficient, can easily counter the blows of the rest of the interreliant (my word) world.
Sanctions do nothing but to damage foreign relations and, I believe this point is self-evident, the American economy.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
learn about the real reason behind an action. is is possible that iran feels the only way it will be listend to or respected/feared is by having a nuclear weapons program? and would it make other countries who we tell not to have nuclear weapons feel extrememly frustrated and child-like to be told this when we ourselves have the weapons?
i believe that understanding is what heals foreign relations. that all said, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject.
That's as may be. What are you proposing as an alternative? Nuclear standoff? Because that seems to be a fairly dangerous policy. The fact is that the problem in Iran is a despotic regime that needs to be replaced, and neither sanctions nor standoffs will do it. I don't know what the answer is (personally, I think it's a shame that we can't assassinate people--Ahmedinejad and his cabinet and most of their henchmen would be prime targets) but I don't think that it's nuclear standoffs.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I don't understand why people seem to think that open trade and diplomatic relations are impossible with Iran. Ahmedinejad has shown numerous times that he's willing to speak with America and has done so. I don't see why we can't have friendly diplomatic relations despite their government.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
I must agree with you that diplomacy is always better than assassinations. Assassination attempts HAVE occured from our country in the past despite the fact that they are seen as unacceptable (and rightfully so in my mind as they only foster a fear of America). Fidel Castro is one that comes to mind as someone we've tried to assassinate in the past to no avail.
Frankly I agree also with the original post that sanctions really don't do anything to replace a regime or at least they haven't in the past. Still, I feel they are more of a tool for diplomacy and a way of registering displeasure with a country's actions. With that said, I believe that sanctions do need to be backed up with some substantive action and shouldn't just be touted as the end all be all. Communication lines should always be open with our fellow nations since this seems to be the only way to prevent war.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
You just prompted me to think of any situations for which sanctions/embargos would be practical, and I could only think of one: during military conflict (i.e. war). Operation Anaconda in the American Civil War is a shining example of that.
In the 70s or 80s, I believe we attempted to assassinate an Iranian official (and failed).
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
You need to check out the accuracy of the May 15th Prophecy in regards to what is happing in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and the return of the Hidden Imam
lastdaywatchers.blogspot.com
What the fuck do prophets have to do with Bill Richardson?
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news