Did sanctions helped bring down the apartheid government in South Africa? Or was that just the “official” story?

QFT. We could start with Bucky Fuller’s World Game, which was designed to, in his words, “advantage all without disadvantaging any.” In other words, Country X has a surplus of something that Country Y needs, and vice versa. That’s the simplest example, but hopefully you get the idea.

But Radley’s argument, and it’s a fair one, is that it punishes the wrong people. It punishes the citizens of the country, not the thugs running the country. The latter don’t suffer; even in the dystopian nightmare of North Korea, Kim Jong Il lives well. But the people starve.

Then what, save war, are the alternatives?
=================================

This might be taken to propose that a government MUST take an action (for some definition of action). Why? Because it seems like a good thing to do? Extend that and you have today’s US Government and our constantly-at-war history.

First: One man’s brutal regime is another man’s champion of the cause (see Shah: Iran).

Second: Not everything has a pretty “solution” with government action as the hero. I disagree with the statement “Something must be done to save those people” when the “something” is physical force of one country against another.

Third: If I’m a brutal dictator, I grin myself to sleep at night if the US uses economic sanctions against me. Poor people are much easier to control.

It seems a whole lot of people like to opt for the easy bomb button to blow up the bad guys rather than work at true change thru revolution of ideas and growth of knowledge in those countries.

Usually collapse or regime change is not the real goal, just some type of behavior change or degradation of capability. Libya finally complied with UN resolutions at least part to get rid of sanctions against them.

Personally, I’m on the fence. On the one hand I agree sanctions are rarely useful and really just hurt the people rather than the leadership. On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy the argument that I might as well shop at the local mafia owned business just because my “sanction” is ineffective, and really only hurts the innocent workers.

the hypocracy that Radley is describing is from people like Rumsfeld, who was “shocked and concerned” about Iraq and its bellicose ways. even though they had been aware of these tactics for years.

had Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, candidly said “this one time useful actor has out grown his use and now must be dealt with …” these documents would be a bit less scandalous.

the documents lare bare the grandstanding of this govt. they didn’t think they could win on reason, so they employed scare tactics to motivate the public. and when the facts were inconvenient, they ignored or glossed over them. and that’s too bad

So, doing the right thing is wrong because we did the wrong thing before we did the right thing? Am I missing part of the logic here?

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” – John Quincy Adams

The context of this quote is liberty, a standing military, central banking and destruction of wealth as a result, etc. Team USA has for too long been in search of monsters to destroy. There will always be monsters that the US “government” targets for destruction, therefore you get perpetual war, which leads to loss of liberty, etc. which is precisely what we are seeing and it is very likely to get much worse in the coming years.

-David Nieporent

I have to agree with this in good measure.

One of the consistent problems in politics is that people too frequently make the mistake of (often selectively) thinking about large multi-agent systems as though they’re more like individual entities than they really are.

This sloppy thinking underlies a lot of the political hostility in this country. It is what makes people see conspiracy where there is really only coincidence and deliberation where there is really only reaction and improvisation.

Then what, save war, are the alternatives?

Seriously, I’d like to know. We’ve got to find alternatives to either imposing sanctions or going to war if we’re going to make it through the XXIst century.

Here’s what I wrote for my campus paper back in 1991, based on what I could find in The Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature (what people used in the horse-and-buggy days before Google News):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.desert-storm.facts/msg/18c8317e93445438?pli=1

Neither was the logical choice for those who believe in limited government.

You cannot project today’s reality back 25 years and say Reagan was wrong…..not if you want any credibilty, that is.

I don’t think you’re allowed to talk about credibility if you’ve claimed than no one at Guantanamo was innocent.

Ahhh memories….