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?
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?