• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should all sanctions against all countries be lifted? (1 Viewer)

Should all sanctions against all countries be lifted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 18 81.8%

  • Total voters
    22

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sanctions don't work. All they do is make countries more economically repressed.
 
All except North Korea. North Korea is one of the most arrogant nations next to the United States itself.
I, personally, think North Korea has yet to learn its lesson.
 
All except North Korea. North Korea is one of the most arrogant nations next to the United States itself.
I, personally, think North Korea has yet to learn its lesson.

Only the US has reason to strut. North Korea has none whatsoever.
 
There are different kinds of sanctions. I think, for example, that the sanctions imposed on the Putin's regime in response to the aggression in Ukraine were most appropriate: not a blanket embargo, but blacklisting individuals and corporations immediately connected to the Kremlin criminals.
 
Sanctions don't work. All they do is make countries more economically repressed.

We should mind our own business. Economic sanctions only hurt the most vulnerable and, at least imho, don't change anything. If we were to lift all sanctions, we would have more funds to help those in need.
 
There are different kinds of sanctions. I think, for example, that the sanctions imposed on the Putin's regime in response to the aggression in Ukraine were most appropriate: not a blanket embargo, but blacklisting individuals and corporations immediately connected to the Kremlin criminals.

Ok, that is true. If it hits where it has impact, like you mentioned, perhaps sanctions do have some use.
 
Sanctions don't work. All they do is make countries more economically repressed.

Of course, sanctions do work, as we saw, when we took down Saddam. More spectacular was the fall of the Evil Empire or Iran folding before Mr Huff Puff. Santions certainly work. They just take time and are easily undermined by third parties like Germany or China.
 
Sanctions don't work. All they do is make countries more economically repressed.
Sanctions, as used by the USA, are nearly an act of war. The Corporate hegemon known as the USA, the king of debt, the master using debt to acquire assetts of real value in exchange for some of the debt, the master puppeteer working the strings of the World's Reserve Currency, is operating an Economic War a/k/a, the New World Order, to attempt to control all the World's economies. The sanctions are an economic/political tool/weapon used in that War. The USA should worry about the USA and its' citizens, not the one tenth of one percent who rent the politicians.
 
Sanctions don't work. All they do is make countries more economically repressed.

Oh? Russia is in a recession right now...but they were hurting economically for over a year before the oil glut hit, thanks to our sanctions...and thanks to our sanctions, they dailed their support for the rebels in the Ukraine way the heck back...and gave the Ukraine some breathing room to get their house (and their defense) in order.

Another example is Iraq, which did abide by the sanctions, and did get rid of all their WMD's (except for a few chemical weapons artillery shells that Saddam may not even have known about - otherwise he would probably have used them when we (wrongly) invaded).

So...yeah, sanctions ARE an effective tool to weaken the bad guys, to make them less likely to go to war...and stopping war is almost always the best outcome we could hope for.
 
Sanctions, as used by the USA, are nearly an act of war. The Corporate hegemon known as the USA, the king of debt, the master using debt to acquire assetts of real value in exchange for some of the debt, the master puppeteer working the strings of the World's Reserve Currency, is operating an Economic War a/k/a, the New World Order, to attempt to control all the World's economies. The sanctions are an economic/political tool/weapon used in that War. The USA should worry about the USA and its' citizens, not the one tenth of one percent who rent the politicians.

This.
 
**** World Domination!

What now?

The fact that we've protected and/or liberated dozens of countries from tyranny of either ideological bent?

The fact that unlike almost every other country on earth we've never been a dicatatorship at any point in our history?

The fact that people have flocked to America for a better life for generations?

The fact that we utterly crushed slavery in our own country?
 
We should mind our own business. Economic sanctions only hurt the most vulnerable and, at least imho, don't change anything. If we were to lift all sanctions, we would have more funds to help those in need.

With sanctions, placed on countries that don't abide with rules set by the UN or whatever, it puts pressure on the people who in turn but pressure on their own government. Sanctions work.
For example the sanctions placed on Iran was the very reason Iran went to the negotiation table in the first place.
 
Yep. We're a hyperpower. And a fairly benevolent one at that.

Tell that to a million dead Iraqis, a few hundred thousand Libyans, and a quarter million dead Syrians.
 
Tell that to a million dead Iraqis, a few hundred thousand Libyans, and a quarter million dead Syrians.

Uh huh. Because Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were such pillars of justice and moral integrity. :roll:

I know your shtick is "US bad, always" but seriously shilling for dictators must get old pretty fast.
 
All except North Korea. North Korea is one of the most arrogant nations next to the United States itself.
I, personally, think North Korea has yet to learn its lesson.

So, you want to punish the North Korean people because their leader is arrogant?
 
So, you want to punish the North Korean people because their leader is arrogant?

They practically worship him like a God (most anyway)... do you have a better idea?
 
Uh huh. Because Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were such pillars of justice and moral integrity. :roll:

I know your shtick is "US bad, always" but seriously shilling for dictators must get old pretty fast.

I really have to know what is benevolent about our score card of the dead.
DaveFagan"Tell that to a million dead Iraqis, a few hundred thousand Libyans, and a quarter million dead Syrians."
Tigerace"Yep. We're a hyperpower. And a fairly benevolent one at that."
I don't think Saddam killed that many Iraqia.
Gaddafi had the most progressive and wealthy Nation in Africa. Free housing, free food, free energy, free university education, free water, etc. We surely cured that.
Assad is a genuine leader and the most popular leader in Syria. We, the USA and the CIA, loved Assad when we farmed out torture to black sites.

Yowsa, they's a rotten apple somewhere.
 
I really have to know what is benevolent about our score card of the dead.
DaveFagan"Tell that to a million dead Iraqis, a few hundred thousand Libyans, and a quarter million dead Syrians."
Tigerace"Yep. We're a hyperpower. And a fairly benevolent one at that."
I don't think Saddam killed that many Iraqia.
Gaddafi had the most progressive and wealthy Nation in Africa. Free housing, free food, free energy, free university education, free water, etc. We surely cured that.
Assad is a genuine leader and the most popular leader in Syria. We, the USA and the CIA, loved Assad when we farmed out torture to black sites.

Yowsa, they's a rotten apple somewhere.

Assad is semi popular---with the Alawites. In case you missed it, Syria isn't exclusively populated by Alawites.

Gaddafi was a state sponsor of terrorism. He allowed European terrorist groups to train on his land and had his own intelligence agency conduct attacks of their own. Lockerbie ring any bells?

He was "progressive" in the sense that he'd "progressed" from killing his own people to killing foreigners.

Saddam killed anywhere from a quarter to a half million of his own people.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom