The sociopathology of sanctions

Written By: - Date published: 9:08 am, August 11th, 2019 - 206 comments
Categories: child welfare, national, Simon Bridges, us politics, war - Tags:

Autonomous sanctions imposed on Iran and Venezuela by the US are expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change. They are sociopathic. Based on its values, The National Party wants to make such sanctions New Zealand’s policy. Extraodinary!

Simon Bridges tied this illegal and immoral policy to New Zealand values in the policy announcement back in May:

In foreign policy, National will ensure we reflect New Zealanders’ values clearly on the world stage. Over the past few years we have seen the emergence of new threats to our freedoms and liberties. We should be prepared to stand against those who would seek to undermine our values.

“That’s why we’re proposing to pass legislation to empower New Zealand to autonomously sanction organisations when the United Nations is unable or unwilling to do so.“

A report on sanctions imposed by the United States on Venezuela from the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington states:

We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018; and that these sanctions would fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population as described in both the Geneva and Hague international conventions, to which the US is a signatory. They are also illegal under international law and treaties which the US has signed, and would appear to violate US law as well.

That excellent Aussie Caitlin Johnstone spells out why sanctions are attractive to sociopaths (my language) as a form of warfare because their effects are hidden:

As we’ve discussed previously, starvation sanctions are in many ways worse than overt warfare, because they can be just as deadly while eliminating the protective public outcry and accountability that comes with conventional warfare. Sanctions are the only form of warfare where it is considered both legal and acceptable to deliberately target a civilian population with deadly force.

It is an absolute disgrace that National is putting forward this sort of policy. It may be based on National Party values – these are absolutely not New Zealand values.

206 comments on “The sociopathology of sanctions ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dukeofurl 1
    11 August 2019 at 10:00 am

    From the link to Bridges policy statement

    "

    “National will prioritise our relationship with the United States, and leverage the strong security, economic and political ties with them to bring this important initiative into action.“National will also further the strong and dynamic economic relationship with China. .."

    Hes living in a fantasy world if he thinks both of those will work at the same time and ignores the US-China trade donnybrook

    • A 1.1
      11 August 2019 at 10:09 am

      +100
      It seems a vote for National = a vote for the US.

    • Dukeofurl 1.2
      11 August 2019 at 10:19 am

      US is sanctioning Chinese companies too, has Bridges heard about a Chinese company called Huawei ?

      Its a total joke to think he can please Trump by aping hime and increase trade with China

  2. francesca 2
    11 August 2019 at 10:18 am

    My god! the irony!!

    " Over the past few years we have seen the emergence of new threats to our freedoms and liberties. We should be prepared to stand against those who would seek to undermine our values."

    Julian Assange

    Illegal bombings of Syria

    Undermining of democratically elected governments

    Arms sales to cruel dictatorships

    Breaking of international agreements

    Wholesale pillage of the world's resources

    Increasing environmental vandalism

    If there had been a Russian Jeffrey Epstein who in exchange for a favourable deal, offered to spill the beans on elite establishment figureheads, and was then found to suicide in jail while on suicide watch…whoarr… the sanctions, the thunderings from the pulpits of self righteous hypocritical western govts would have been torrential.

    Interestingly Epstein's suicide comes hot on the heels of one of the principal witnesses declaring that Trump never had sexual relations or flirted with the Epstein minors.

    So the case seems clear

    Full on sanctions against the US and immediate invasion

    • NZJester 2.1
      11 August 2019 at 12:45 pm

      Over the past few years? I think you need to look back a bit further at how a lot of emerging democracies were snuffed out by the US who backed some ruthless dictators because they feared that the communists would hijack those emerging democracies. That has lead to a lot of the reasons they are now using to remove our freedoms.

  3. Stuart Munro. 3
    11 August 2019 at 11:11 am

    The Gnats were always keen on the US – they had unrequited hopes of trade deals – but they weren't always America's bitch. They've a long road back to credibly representing NZ interests.

  4. reason 4
    11 August 2019 at 12:12 pm

    I read of Judiths support for eliot abrams and the usa coup before other Nats, which fits with her 'crusher' principals……..

    Sanctions are siege warfare …… the victims die of starvation or lack of other basics …. and look exactly like the skeletal victims from the liberated nazi concentration camps , WWII….

    So the victims look the same ,,,, what about the perpetrators ???.

    The UN is ready to help. “The problem is that the opposition wants to come to power by force”.

    De Zayas then spoke about how the UN “came too late” in previous global crises (e.g. Ethiopia/Eritrea, East Timor, and Sudan). However:

    In the case of Venezuela, Secretary General Antonio Guterres has offered his good offices in mediating and the High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet has endorsed the call for mediation. The problem is that the opposition wants to come to power by force – by a coup\

    https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2019/02/26/former-un-expert-slams-the-media-for-manufacturing-consent-for-regime-change-in-venezuela/

    https://therealnews.com/stories/catastrophic-death-toll-in-us-saudi-war-on-yemen-has-been-grossly-downplayed

  5. fustercluck 5
    11 August 2019 at 1:22 pm

    Soooo…ignore international terrorism sponsored by Iran?

  6. Brigid 6
    11 August 2019 at 2:04 pm

    Not just Venezuela and Iran, but Crimea region of Ukraine, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe

    This website gives details of the OFAC Sanctions Programs

    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx

    I very much doubt Soimon has a clue how extensive the US sanctions are, the moron that he is.

  7. Shadrach 7
    11 August 2019 at 5:51 pm

    "Autonomous sanctions imposed on Iran and Venezuela by the US are expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change."

    Well in Venezuela, socialism was already successfully achieving that. https://nypost.com/2017/08/01/venezuela-a-nation-devoured-by-socialism/

    "They are sociopathic. Based on its values, The National Party wants to make such sanctions New Zealand’s policy. Extraodinary!"

    So did you support sanctions against Apartheid South Africa?

    • Incognito 7.1
      11 August 2019 at 6:40 pm

      You seem to have serious issues with reading comprehension and I’d suggest that you re-read that first sentence with an open mind.

      What “sanctions against Apartheid South Africa” are you referring to? It has been a while so please refresh my memory.

      • Shadrach 7.1.1
        11 August 2019 at 8:41 pm

        I have no problem with reading comprehension. Socialists are trying to blame Venezuela's economic disaster on sanctions to distract from the failure of yet another socialist economy.

        During apartheid, there were a variety of sanctions (eg financial, sporting) placed on South Africa by a number of countries. But then you know that, so I'm trying to work out why you're asking.

        • Incognito 7.1.1.1
          11 August 2019 at 9:33 pm

          Well, that’s odd then because your comments strongly suggest you have completely missed or misunderstood the meaning of the first sentence of the OP. In fact, you have completely twisted the key message of the OP to suit your own narrative, which is that socialism leads to economic disaster as exemplified by Venezuela. So, maybe you were indeed correct in saying that you don’t have a problem with reading comprehension and in actual fact, you tried to detract from the OP. Do I have to change letterhead?

          • In Vino 7.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2019 at 10:26 pm

            Shadrach is utterly disingenuous. I think he knows that the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout.

            On the other hand, these modern sanctions as enforced against Iran several times now really do cause hardship and loss of life.

            The post is correct, and Shadrach is obfuscating, as usual.

            • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2019 at 10:32 pm

              Oh, I agree! It is Mike’s prerogative to deal with Shadrach or not as he sees fit. I don’t know where Mike stands if another Moderator ‘takes over’ and this particular comment is a bit of a grey area that one could take or leave either way.

            • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.1.2
              11 August 2019 at 11:41 pm

              "not all that many economic…"

              You are joking, right? I mean that shows a profound ignorance of history.

              “In 1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions. During the course of the 1985 debt crisis, the time seemed to have arrived to finally force the Apartheid regime to its knees by economic sanctions.”
              http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/nfp/nfp42p/nfp42p_staehelin-e.pdf

              There is plenty of debate about whether or not the sanctions were successful, but there is no debate that economic sanctions existed.

              BTW, I never even mentioned Iran. Take some time to read my posts if you actually want to comment.

              • McFlock …
                12 August 2019 at 12:00 am

                What was actually written:

                the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout.

                From the link supplied by shadders:

                In general, sanctions imposed against South Africa were very limited and indicate numerous loopholes and exception clauses. One reason for the limitation surely lay in the fact that the heads of government in Britain, the USA, and Germany did not regard sanctions as the correct means of prompting political change in South Africa

                So not only did the anti-Apartheid sanctions not cripple SA's economy, they weren't intended to do so.

                Funny how shadders fixated so much on refuting his misrepresentation of In Vino's comment that he provided supporting evidence for what In Vino actually wrote. Classic shadders.

                • Shadrach …
                  12 August 2019 at 1:09 pm

                  You really struggle to read for comprehension. My response to InVino was with reference to his comment with regards sanctions that "and not all that many economic". That was patently false.

                  • McFlock …
                    12 August 2019 at 1:23 pm

                    Exactly. He never said there were none, which is the imaginary comment you were responding to with "there is no debate that economic sanctions existed". Correct. That was never an assertion made by In vino. You made it up, and then to support that straw man you linked to an article that illustrated that the economic sanctions that were imposed were full of loopholes and had barely any effect on the SA economy.

                    Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 1:42 pm

                      If InVino seriously thinks that there were 'Not all that many economic' sanctions against SA, then perhaps he thinks there are 'not that many' economic sanctions against Venezuela. He must also have a profound ignorance of the economic sanctions that were put in place against SA.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2019 at 1:52 pm

                      He must also have a profound ignorance of the economic sanctions that were put in place against SA.

                      What, you mean the "very limited" sanctions with "numerous loopholes and exception clauses", as your own link described them?

                      I mean, if you really want to parse the difference between "not all that many" and "very limited" like some lowest-bidder-supplied chatbot, feel free. It will just be another instance of you progressively failing to comprehend the English language as you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:02 pm

                      "What, you mean the "very limited" sanctions with "numerous loopholes and exception clauses", as your own link described them?"

                      No. I mean the sanctions imposed by the EU, the US and others that resulted in substantial disinvestment in SA.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:13 pm

                      The disinvestment that your own link shows peaked in 1985, a year before the sanctions (described by your link as "very limited" and with "numerous loopholes and exception clauses", remember) were introduced in 1986.

                      So the sanctions "resulted in substantial disinvestment in SA" before they were implemented?

                      I liked this bit of your link (my italics added for emphasis):

                      However, the overall impact of disinvestment on the balance of payments was comparatively minor. It was rather small and unprofitable firms that withdrew from the market. Moreover, there were unintended profiteers. Particularly the large South African conglomerates benefited from American and British sales, since they could acquire divisions of firms at favorable prices.

                      You keep contradicting your own link lol

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:30 pm

                      “You keep contradicting your own link lol”

                      You really need to learn to read.

                      "During the sanctions period (4th quarter 1986 – 1st quarter 1991) South Africa suffered a net capital outflow of 16.2 billion rands, which corresponded to an annual average of 2% of GNP."

                      That is 'substantial divestment'. I never claimed it was a world record!

                      And there's more:

                      "Disinvestment (or divestment) from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s, in protest of South Africa's system of apartheid, but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s. The disinvestment campaign, after being realized in federal legislation enacted in 1986 by the United States, is credited by some[2] as pressuring the South African Government to embark on negotiations ultimately leading to the dismantling of the Apartheid system."

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

                      The Disinvestment campaign was not enacted by the US until 1986.

                      InVino claimed that there were 'Not all that many economic' sanctions against SA. He didn't mention the effectiveness of sanctions, he just said there were not all that many. He was plain wrong.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:48 pm

                      Original link didn't work so you're switching, huh.

                      And if IV didn't mention the effectiveness of the sanctions, why are you? (btw, now you've linked to contradictory assessments of the effectiveness of the sanctions)

                • Shadrach …
                  13 August 2019 at 9:48 am

                  "Original link didn't work so you're switching, huh."

                  Do you need help finding it from the link? Last paragraph, page 2.

                  "During the sanctions period (4th quarter 1986 – 1st quarter 1991) South Africa suffered a net capital outflow of 16.2 billion rands, which corresponded to an annual average of 2% of GNP."

                  Learn to read, McFlock. Learn to read.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 August 2019 at 12:25 pm

                    The paragraph ends:

                    However, the net outflow of foreign investment had already begun before introduction of the sanctions. South Africa suffered its greatest net capital outflow, which led to the moratorium on debt, in 1985, one year before imposition of economic sanctions.

                    As In vino wrote:

                    the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout.

                    • Shadrach …
                      13 August 2019 at 9:21 pm

                      You lied. You said "Original link didn't work so you're switching, huh.". The original link DID work. It said "During the sanctions period (4th quarter 1986 – 1st quarter 1991) South Africa suffered a net capital outflow of 16.2 billion rands, which corresponded to an annual average of 2% of GNP." This directly supports my comment that divestment was significant.

                      InVino also claimed of the sanctions that "not all that many economic". That was bs.

                      Now you're switching to whether or not the sanctions were aimed at 'crippling the SA economy'. No-one gives a shit about the motive. You're only bringing it up because your pathetic attempts to defend InVino have failed.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 August 2019 at 9:42 pm

                      lol

                      Even if the entire net outflow were the result of sanctions, you're really working hard to avoid everything else in the link you came up with. Even in the same paragraph as your largely irrelevant extracts.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      14 August 2019 at 7:01 pm

                      Seriously?

                      You said "Original link didn't work so you're switching, huh.". The original link DID work. The link supported exactly what I said about divestment, that it was 'significant'. Unless you think "16.2 billion rands: and "an annual average of 2% of GNP." is not significant.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2019 at 9:43 pm

                      I'm not sure you realise that not only is your assessment of "significant" irrelevant to the role of economic sanctions in the ending of Apartheid, it is also irrelevant to what In Vino actually said.

                      Your first link held that the sanctions were weak, and distinguished between disinvestment due to sanctions and disinvestment due to other reasons. Your second link generally conflates all forms of no0n-investment, but even that article refers to "disinvestment, boycotts and sanctions".

                      So let's look at In Vino's comment (again):

                      the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout.

                      In Vino clearly referred to "sanctions". Not "boycotts", or even the wider "divestment"/"disinvestment". The only time you addressed sanctions specifically, you provided a link that explicitly stated pretty much what In Vino wrote. And now you're just swirling around the drain, trying to swim away from the overpowering evidence that you're wrong.

                      Evidence you provided because you didn’t or couldn’t read your own links.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 6:05 pm

                      "I'm not sure you realise that not only is your assessment of "significant" irrelevant to the role of economic sanctions in the ending of Apartheid, it is also irrelevant to what In Vino actually said."

                      My response to InVino was directly relevant to his comment with regards sanctions that "and not all that many economic".

                      Do you or do you not agree that there were economic sanctions against SA?

                      “The only time you addressed sanctions specifically, you provided a link that explicitly stated pretty much what In Vino wrote. ”
                      Liar. Again. “During the sanctions period (4th quarter 1986 – 1st quarter 1991) South Africa suffered a net capital outflow of 16.2 billion rands, which corresponded to an annual average of 2% of GNP.” That explicitly contradicts what InVino wrote. But heh, according to you what is or is not ‘significant’ is “irrelevant to what In Vino actually said”, so why the hell raise it?

                    • McFlock …
                      15 August 2019 at 9:50 pm

                      Do you or do you not agree that there were economic sanctions against SA?

                      There weren't all that many, as In Vino clearly said.

                      “The only time you addressed sanctions specifically, you provided a link that explicitly stated pretty much what In Vino wrote. ”
                      Liar. Again. “During the sanctions period (4th quarter 1986 – 1st quarter 1991) South Africa suffered a net capital outflow of 16.2 billion rands, which corresponded to an annual average of 2% of GNP.”

                      But the extent of divestment was not the result of sanctions. From the same source:

                      Officially imposed financial sanctions had comparatively little impact on capital outflow. Or, as the president of the South African central bank, De Kock, put it in 1986: “The EEC and US sanctions packages on bank loans and investments do little more than change a de facto into a de jure situation”. From South Africa’s vantage point, financial sanctions hardly prevented flow of capital that would have been transacted without sanctions.

                      In Vino clearly spoke specifically of sanctions. You are not addressing sanctions, but twattling on about divestment and capital outflows that your own source says "hardly prevented flow of capital that would have been transacted without sanctions".

                      Classic shadders: irrelevance matched only by incompetence and arrogance.

                    • Shadrach …
                      16 August 2019 at 12:10 pm

                      "There weren't all that many, as In Vino clearly said."

                      Ok, so you're in denial too. Got it.

                      "But the extent of divestment was not the result of sanctions. "

                      Oh so now it’s the ‘extent’ of divestment. Slippery. Where did I refer to the ‘extent’? But if you think sanctions and divestment are somehow disconnected, you missed this bit:

                      "Disinvestment (or divestment) from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s, in protest of South Africa's system of apartheid, but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s. The disinvestment campaign, after being realized in federal legislation enacted in 1986 by the United States, is credited by some[2] as pressuring the South African Government to embark on negotiations ultimately leading to the dismantling of the Apartheid system."

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

                      Oh my – see the word ‘significant’?

                      “In Vino clearly spoke specifically of sanctions. You are not addressing sanctions, but twattling on about divestment ”

                      Are you now trying to claim that there was no link between divestment and sanctions? Are you really that stupid?

                    • McFlock …
                      16 August 2019 at 12:49 pm

                      The link between divestment and sanctions is a bit like the link between your failing English skills and your ability to make a complete fool of yourself: one might cause the other to a certain degree, but to credit it as the sole (or even most significant) cause of the other would neglect a multitude of other factors that contribute to either divestment or your catastrophic stupidity.

                      Particularly, just as your foolishness tends to precede your accelerating inability to understand basic English, the most substantial divestment occurred before sanctions were eventually imposed.

                    • Shadrach …
                      16 August 2019 at 9:36 pm

                      "The link between divestment and sanctions…"

                      …is obvious. And supported by the link you couldn’t locate. Remember?

                      "one might cause the other to a certain degree…"

                      …oh well done. Previously you ruled out divestment being related to sanctions.

                      "…but to credit it as the sole (or even most significant)…

                      I didn't. Take out the words ‘sole’ and the ‘most’ and you might be approaching what I wrote.

                      You’re making shit up. Again. Your ability to make stuff up seems only matched by your ability to misquote what others actually write. Geez I’ve got a long list in this conversation alone.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 August 2019 at 10:14 pm

                      Previously you ruled out divestment being related to sanctions.

                      lol. Not quite.

                      You seem to be trying to suggest that the total extent of divestment indicates something about the total extent of sanctions (either number of sanctions or economic impact thereof). This is not the case, as clearly argued by your first link and indicated by your second.

                    • Shadrach …
                      18 August 2019 at 5:11 pm

                      "Not quite."

                      Yep, you did.

                      "You seem to be trying to suggest that the total extent of divestment indicates something about the total extent of sanctions (either number of sanctions or economic impact thereof). "

                      Nope. Never claimed that. I claimed there is a link, which is self evident. Sanctions resulted in at least some of the divestment. As the link I posted showed. The one you claimed didn't exist.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2019 at 5:49 pm

                      Nope. Never claimed that. I claimed there is a link, which is self evident. Sanctions resulted in at least some of the divestment. As the link I posted showed. The one you claimed didn't exist.

                      So to counter In Vino's claim that there were "not all that many economic" sanctions, you decided to present data on the total extent of divestment, which does not indicate anything about the extent of sanctions.

                      We seem to be in agreement that your comments about divestment are irrelevant to any discussion on the extent of sanctions.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      18 August 2019 at 9:41 pm

                      “So to counter In Vino's claim that there were "not all that many economic" sanctions, you decided to present data on the total extent of divestment…"

                      Now I'm going to call you on this and slam it home, because this is a perfect example of the frequency with which you screw up.

                      My response to InVino was https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645579, and included this:

                      “In 1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions. During the course of the 1985 debt crisis, the time seemed to have arrived to finally force the Apartheid regime to its knees by economic sanctions.”
                      http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/nfp/nfp42p/nfp42p_staehelin-e.pdf

                      NO MENTION OF DIVESTMENT. NONE. NADA.

                      In fact your own reply to me (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645582) didn’t mention divestment either.

                      The discussion on divestment arose some posts later (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645909) in and exchange between you and I.

                      So you got this horribly wrong, didn’t you McFlock.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2019 at 10:41 pm

                      so to recap:

                      In Vino said there weren't "all that many" sanctions. You brought out your first link that starts with

                      During the course of the 1985 debt crisis, the time seemed to have arrived to finally force the Apartheid regime to its knees by economic sanctions

                      but then describes what actually happened as:

                      In general, sanctions imposed against South Africa were very limited and indicate numerous loopholes and exception clauses. One reason for the limitation surely lay in the fact that the heads of government in Britain, the USA, and Germany did not regard sanctions as the correct means of prompting political change in South Africa

                      When it was pointed out that your first link actually supports In Vino's comment, you brought up the wikipedia link on divestment (either as an intentional distraction or because you're a fucking moron). Which you now acknowledge is irrelevant to any discussion on sanctions.

                      So there are wo links supplied by you, one that supports In Vino's comment and another that is irrelevant to the discussion.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 12:27 pm

                      Here's what you wrote:

                      "So to counter In Vino's claim that there were "not all that many economic" sanctions, you decided to present data on the total extent of divestment, which does not indicate anything about the extent of sanctions."

                      All you have to do is go to my actual response to InVino https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645579 to see I never even mentioned divestment. And neither did your response to me.

                      I see those years of working at that University didn’t help your reading skills any.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 12:46 pm

                      There's something else humorous about your approach.

                      In Vino's comment included this:

                      "I think he knows that the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout."

                      I have been vey clear that the part I was responding to was the part in emphasis, yet you have been focusing on about the 'crippling South Africa's economy' bit. Poor reading skills, or blatant dishonesty Mc Flock? You're guilty of one of them.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 12:52 pm

                      In general, sanctions imposed against South Africa were very limited and indicate numerous loopholes and exception clauses.

                      Sounds pretty close to "not all that many".

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 1:40 pm

                      "In 1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions."

                      "The costs of trade sanctions were greater than those of financial sanctions. The various trade sanctions triggered a range of high costs. The oil embargo represented the most painful measure for South Africa, even if there were significant loopholes. The oil embargo raised the price of petroleum and thus impacted the total population."

                      "The cost of import sanctions especially affected the black population in the form of unemployment. The cost of trade sanctions against South Africa overall were estimated by one study at an annual 1.3% of GNP. Along with the cost of financial sanctions, the cost of economic sanctions against South Africa is estimated to have approximated 1.5% of GNP. Those affected were largely unqualified blacks."

                      Sounds a long way from 'not all that many'.

                      Here’s more:
                      “In response to the outrages of apartheid, many countries adopted trade and financial sanctions and a significant amount of foreign investment was withdrawn from South Africa. After the adoption of sanctions, South Africa experienced economic difficulty and numerous domestic actors commented on how the economic situation was untenable and required political change.”
                      http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf

                      MANY countries. Sounds a long way from ‘not all that many’.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 1:51 pm

                      Sounds a long way from 'not all that many'.

                      And yet the very same link describes their extent as "very limited" and the costs they imposed as "meager".

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 3:03 pm

                      Yeh, nah.

                      'Many' countries imposing economic sanctions is not consistent with 'not that many' sanctions being economic.

                      And then there's this:

                      "South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions"

                      Their most important trading partners.

                      "The various trade sanctions triggered a range of high costs."

                      "The oil embargo raised the price of petroleum and thus impacted the total population."

                      The TOTAL population.

                      "The cost of import sanctions especially affected the black population in the form of unemployment. The cost of trade sanctions against South Africa overall were estimated by one study at an annual 1.3% of GNP. Along with the cost of financial sanctions, the cost of economic sanctions against South Africa is estimated to have approximated 1.5% of GNP. Those affected were largely unqualified blacks."

                      1.5% of GNP.

                      But no, you still argue that 'not that many' sanctions were economic. I suspect you know you're wrong, but you're just too stupid to admit it.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 3:17 pm

                      Neither your first link nor you irrelevant link nor even In vino's comment say "many countries" imposed sanctions. So you made that bit up. And "their most important trading partners" includes only three in the list, which is "a few", not even "not all that many".

                      Your link is the one that says 1.5% of GNP is a "meager" impact on the total population, from a "very limited" set of sanctions.

                      I'm happy to accept the relevant that you presented. You failed to read it properly.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 4:53 pm

                      “Neither your first link nor you irrelevant link nor even In vino's comment say "many countries" imposed sanctions.”

                      “And "their most important trading partners" includes only three in the list…”

                      You didn't read it, did you.

                      “In 1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions."

                      The USA, the EC and Japan is not 3 countries, you fwit. The EC is the executive of the EU. The EU is currently 28 countries/states.

                      Now, what were you saying?

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 5:02 pm

                      EC was one market and trading partner, idiot.

                      This is a failing dolt45 has, too – he kept trying to ask Merkel for a separate trade deal with Germany. She kept politely telling him it couldn't be done.

                      Either way, one set of sanctions from the EC. One set of sanctions from Japan. One set of sanctions from the USA. Not all that many, really.

                      Repeating dolt45 mistakes – classic shadders

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 5:54 pm

                      "EC was one market and trading partner…"

                      And 28 countries. The comment I referenced referred to 'countries'. You just don't read well.

                      And if you think that 30 countries, including two of the largest trade blocs on the planet, represent 'not that many', I have a large bridge to sell you.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 6:26 pm

                      More education for you McFlock:

                      https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf

                      "Excluding gold, South Africa's major export markets have been in Western Europe, the United States and Japan; these countries have also been the main suppliers of South Africa's imports. In 1984, just eight countries — Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the United States, Switzerland and Japan — took 71% of South Africa's non-gold exports and supplied 78% of its imports. The United States, West Germany, Japan and Britain alone provided South Africa with some 60% of its total imports.1 EEC countries on their own took over 40% of South Africa's exports and provided over 40% of its imports."

                      Not that many, eh McFlock. I still have that bridge to sell you.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 8:04 pm

                      lol

                      The comment I referenced referred to 'countries'

                      So your third attempt at a link broke down EEC imports by country. So what. They were EEC sanctions, not French or Dutch. One market, one set of sanctions implemented, no matter how many states.

                      And who cares what percentage of SA exports the EEC took – all sanctions together had a "meager" impact on the SA economy, because they were "very limited". Talking about the size of export markets is even less relevant to the extent of sanctions than talking about overall divestment.

                      So that's three links you've presented, one supporting the comment you oppose and two being irrelevant.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 8:54 pm

                      “So your third attempt at a link broke down EEC imports by country. So what. They were EEC sanctions, not French or Dutch. One market, one set of sanctions implemented, no matter how many states."

                      The EC is a group of nations. 28 as of last count. That means (around) 28 countries engaged in the sanctions, + the US, Japan (& others?). That isn’t 3. It is a significant block of the worlds economy. You're strenuously trying to squeeze through the eye of a needle. It's humorous reading.

                      "And who cares what percentage of SA exports the EEC took – all sanctions together had a "meager" impact on the SA economy, because they were "very limited". "

                      You are confused. I wasn't referring to the 'impact', only that InVino was talking shit trying to imply not many of the sanctions were economic. A significant part of the global economy imposed economic sanctions. Those sanctions were imposed by countries engaged in significant proportions of SA’s trade. You’re pushing shit up hill with a comb, McFlock, and it’s running down all over your arguments.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 9:07 pm

                      A significant part of the global economy imposed economic sanctions.

                      3+ markets, lol

                      Those sanctions were imposed by countries engaged in significant proportions of SA’s trade.

                      But were "very limited", and that trade was also affected by boycotts and simple divestment for commenrcail, not sanction, reasons.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 9:28 pm

                      “3+ markets, lol”

                      Are you suggesting that the 28 nations of the EU + the USA + Japan do not represent a ‘significant part of the global economy’?

                      “But were "very limited"”

                      Based on the proportion of SA’s economy these countries represented, it certainly wasn’t limited. But you know that.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 9:39 pm

                      I've also been waiting for you to show any sense of awareness of sanctions imposed on SA by other countries than the 28ish in the EC, the USA and Japan. Clearly your knowledge is very limited.

                      Here’s another. Canada. From July 1985.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:07 pm

                      Are you suggesting that the 28 nations of the EU + the USA + Japan do not represent a ‘significant part of the global economy’?

                      Nope. Just that 3 markerts imposing "very limited" sanctions full of loopholes to "meager" effect is closer to "not all that many" than whatever wank you're trying to argue.

                      Here’s another. Canada. From July 1985.

                      4 markets then. If I wasn't overly impressed by token sanctions full of loopholes against 40% of SA's exports, <41% won't cut it.SA's exports at the time… by the way, these Canadian sanctions – did they eliminate trade between the two nations, or was this 1% partneship simply reduced to, say, 0.5%? Very limited and full of loopholes, indeed.

                      The bulk of economic pressure on South Africa came from boycotts and divestment from businesses that didn't want to be boycotted in their home countries. There weren't actually very many economic sanctions at all. Your sources have come up with 4.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:22 pm

                      "Nope. Just that 3 markerts imposing "very limited" sanctions full of loopholes to "meager" effect is closer to "not all that many" than whatever wank you're trying to argue."

                      ‘Not all that many’ makes no judgement on the outcome. But then you know that. Which makes you a liar. And I just thought you were stupid.

                      "4 markets then."

                      So we’re up to 28+2+1 countries. How much of the global GDP is represented by the entire EC, the USA, Canada and Japan? I'll bet it's nearer to 'many' than 'not that many'

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:35 pm

                      Now, lets add more, shall we.

                      https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf

                      "June 1986 Denmark announces a ban on all trade in goods and services except the export of medicines, from December 1986."

                      "October 1986 Republic of Ireland introduces restrictive licences for imports of South African fruit and vegetables. Total ban after January 1987."

                      "November 1986 Hong Kong bans imports of South African iron and steel products."

                      That's 3 more.

                      So that’s all the countries in the EC in 1986 (I looked it up, it was 12) + USA + Japan + Canada + Denmark + Republic of Ireland + Hong Kong +++++

                    • Incognito []
                      19 August 2019 at 10:56 pm

                      Sigh

                      So that’s all the countries in the EC in 1986 (I looked it up, it was 12) + USA + Japan + Canada + Denmark + Republic of Ireland + Hong Kong +++++

                      Ireland and Denmark joined the EEC in 1973. Hong Kong was still British and the UK was, you guessed it, a member of the EEC since 1973 too.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:40 pm

                      4 sets of sanctions. Not all that many.

                      By the way… how many countries were in the EEC in 1990?

                      Looks like your overinflated tally has just halved…

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:45 pm

                      https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf

                      "In 1984, just eight countries — Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the United States, Switzerland and Japan — took 71% of South Africa's non-gold exports and supplied 78% of its imports. The United States, West Germany, Japan and Britain alone provided South Africa with some 60% of its total imports.1 EEC countries on their own took over 40% of South Africa's exports and provided over 40% of its imports."

                      And you're still arguing that 'not that many' sanctions were economic.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:48 pm

                      How much of the global GDP was represented by the entire EC, the USA, Canada, Japan, Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Hong Kong?

                      I'll bet it's nearer to 'many' than 'not that many'. And I've got more.

                      “In addition, Norway has stated its future intention of ceasing all trade with South Africa, Sweden has banned the import of all agricultural commodities from South Africa, the Nordic countries have banned all air links with South Africa…” https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 10:59 pm

                      EC in 1986 (+ the UK):

                      Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal.

                      Others (so far)

                      USA, Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong.

                      More to come.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:04 pm

                      "In 1984, just eight countries — Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the United States, Switzerland and Japan — took 71% of South Africa's non-gold exports and supplied 78% of its imports.

                      Switzerland?! Your first link examined at length whether Switzerland not imposing sanctions impacted the effectiveness of sanctions overall (spoilers: it didn't, because sanctions in general were very limited and full of exceptions and loopholes). It even says it right up the top:

                      The study examines if the fact that Switzerland did not take part in official economic sanctions delayed the political transformation of South Africa

                      So all you've done is list a bunch of countries, some of which imposed sanctions that were "very limited" and full of exceptions and loopholes. More irrelevant bullshit, in other words.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:06 pm

                      To Incognito

                      "Ireland and Denmark joined the EEC in 1973. Hong Kong was still British and the UK was, you guessed it, a member of the EEC since 1973 too."

                      Yep, you're right about Ireland and Denmark. I had already excluded the UK. For now.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:08 pm

                      "Switzerland?! "

                      Yeah, Switzerland. It was my link remember (although you may not seeing as you struggled to find it on one occasion). But did you notice all the other countries listed? You know, the ones that DID impose sanctions?

                      “So all you’ve done is list a bunch of countries, some of which imposed sanctions that were “very limited” and full of exceptions and loopholes.”

                      The words ‘Limited’ and ‘exceptions and loopholes’ are irrelevant to what InVino claimed. Even they were correct. That list of nations comprise a substantial portion of the global GDP, and they all imposed sanctions.

                    • Shadrach …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:18 pm

                      Oh and http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf

                      "In response to the outrages of apartheid, many countries adopted trade and financial sanctions and a significant amount of foreign investment was withdrawn from South Africa."

                      MANY countries. I posted that earlier, but you must have missed it. Lol.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:39 pm

                      MANY countries. I posted that earlier, but you must have missed it. Lol.

                      But not all that many sanctions. All of the economic sanctions described as "very limited" or "limited", similar descriptions to your first link. So many countries paid lipservice while protecting their own industries, but actual economic sanctions rather than protectionism under the guise of social justice? Not all that many.

                      You really should read your own links, rather than just looking for bitsa you can misconstrue into agreement with whatever nutbar claim you pulled out of your arse.

                      Classic shadders

                    • McFlock …
                      19 August 2019 at 11:49 pm

                      The words ‘Limited’ and ‘exceptions and loopholes’ are irrelevant to what InVino claimed. Even they were correct. That list of nations comprise a substantial portion of the global GDP, and they all imposed sanctions.

                      "Limited" is the important bit. "not all that many" is a comparative, not an absolute. 30 Soldiers can be a lot in a small room, not all than many when facing a regiment. So a bunch of trading partners made some half-arsed measures when boycotts and basic economic divestment were already doing the bulk of the work. Big deal. A 1% trading partner halved its imports from SA – again, so what and how much of that was due to boycotts rather than sanctions? OECD took decades to respond in a half-arsed manner. Gleneagles was a decade before the bulk of the token efforts you think count as "many" economic sanctions. Sums it all up – sporting, cultural, but not all that many economic.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 12:15 am

                      "But not all that many sanctions. "

                      And then you go one to say 'all of the sanctions…'. Sniff.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 12:18 am

                      ""not all that many" is a comparative, not an absolute."

                      And you've been trying to shift the debate away from that comparative to the impacts of the sanctions, the motives behind the sanctions, in fact just about anything other what InVino actually wrote!

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 12:27 am

                      lol divestment dude accuses opponent of digression for talking about sanctions in an argument about sanctions..

                      Classic shadders. Night night.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 12:54 am

                      “…divestment dude accuses opponent of digression for talking about sanctions in an argument about sanctions.”

                      The argument isn’t about sanctions, per se. It is about whether or not the sanctions against SA were ‘not that many economic’.

                      You’ve tried everything to weasel your way out of actually arguing that point since about https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645926, when I caught you out lying about the link I provided.

                      Since then it’s been the impact of sanctions, whether or not they were designed to cripple the SA economy, divestment, in fact just about anything to avoid actually addressing my only comment to InVino. The idea that the sanctions against SA were ‘not that many economic’ is bs. And you running around the houses tends to indicate you know that.

                      Meanwhile, when you stated that there were only 3 trading partners who instituted sanctions, were you really that ignorant?

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 1:39 pm

                      The argument isn’t about sanctions, per se. It is about whether or not the sanctions against SA were ‘not that many economic’.

                      or aimed at crippling SA's economy. cf: In vino's original comment:

                      the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy, which stayed pretty strong throughout.

                      what was never close to relevant was divestment, SA's total trade balance, or whether the single set of sanctions from the EEC involved 28 countries or twelve.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 3:03 pm

                      "or aimed at crippling SA's economy. cf: In vino's original comment:"

                      A part of his comment I didn't respond to. You've been confused about what was actually said all along. That showed in your introducing a whole raft of irrelevant topics.

                      "what was never close to relevant was divestment,"

                      I didn't raise divestment with InVino. I raised it in response to a post from you.

                      "or whether the single set of sanctions from the EEC involved 28 countries or twelve."

                      Well…that is relevant if you're claiming there were 'not that many economic' sanctions. I know you think the EC is a country, but the reality is there were many economic sanctions imposed by many countries.

                      But it's been good watching you squirm around trying to pretend sanctions from a countries major trading partners, in addition to many other countries, are 'not that many', simply because you think they had no impact.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 3:16 pm

                      Not one country. One market, with one set of trade rules, and one set of sanctions. That's literally what the purpose of the EEC was.

                      As for divestment, with whom you raised it is irrelevant. In Vino talked about sanctions. I talked about sanctions. You confused divestment with sanctions and brought up a wikipedia article on divestment because your first link supported In Vino's characterisation of the sanctions. You brought up a list of SA's trading partners when the issue was sanctions.

                      If there were "many" economic sanctions, why was there so little effect? 1.5% of GNP? From a global ban by the bulk of their trading partners? It's a joke. You're a joke.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 7:44 pm

                      “Not one country. One market, with one set of trade rules, and one set of sanctions. That's literally what the purpose of the EEC was.”

                      Well no. The UK joined the EU in 1973, but it was generally opposed to sanctions against South Africa.

                      “As for divestment, with whom you raised it is irrelevant.”

                      No, it isn’t. I didn’t respond to InVino about divestment. Although you claimed I did (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1647453).

                      “You confused divestment with sanctions…”

                      No, I didn't. I raised the issue of divestment because you stated "What, you mean the "very limited" sanctions with "numerous loopholes and exception clauses" (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645718) My response was that the sanctions led to significant divestment, and I provided evidence for that. You did get somewhat confused afterwards however, losing the link (https://thestandard.org.nz/the-sociopathology-of-sanctions/#comment-1645926)

                      “…and brought up a wikipedia article on divestment because your first link supported In Vino's characterisation of the sanctions. ‘

                      My first link directly contradicted InVino’s claim.

                      “You brought up a list of SA's trading partners when the issue was sanctions.”

                      Well yes, it is trading partners who impose sanctions, lol.

                      “If there were "many" economic sanctions, why was there so little effect?”

                      Actually that is debatable. I could provide you with plenty of references to show they DID have a material effect. I could point you to comments such as “one could argue that they (sanctions) were the “final straw” that made economic conditions intolerable and forced political change. http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf. But I’d be following you down your own rabbit hole, and in truth I’m not a fan because they tend to hurt the most vulnerable disproportionately. As they did in SA. But here’s the thing – the impact of sanctions was never the point.

                      There are many reasons sanctions may not have been as effective in SA. After all they have had only limited effect in other cases. (“In Russia the sanctions have not been successful and I do not think they ever will be. Russians are tough people, the country is big and has a powerful neighbour. This means not all countries can be destroyed, or drummed into obedience through sanctions to initiate regime change.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economic_sanctions).

                      I’ll leave you with this. From an article that argues sanctions generally don’t work:

                      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-sanctions-wont-work-july-16-2014-7?r=US&IR=T

                      “Sanctions have failed to dissuade Iran from continuing to enrich uranium. They haven’t dislodged North Korea’s repressive and erratic leaders or forced a rollback of their nuclear and missile programs. For all the international pressure on Syria’s Assad, the regime is getting more ruthless, not less, and the policy debate in Washington has moved on to how much military support to provide the rebels.”

                      But interestingly, the article finishes with this:

                      “None of this is to say that sanctions never work, the dissolution of South Africa’s brutal apartheid regime is a case in point.”

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 9:20 pm

                      The UK might have disagreed, but the EEC sanctions remained in place because that's how a single marketplace establishes its trade rules.

                      My response was that the sanctions led to significant divestment, and I provided evidence for that.

                      The divestment that your first link clearly states was larger before sanctions were introduced.

                      The divestment that you admitted does not indicate the extent of sanctions.

                      The divestment that several of your links clearly state was mostly the result of boycotts and business decisions relating to the SA economy, not sanctions.

                      And unless your "case in point" link actually calculates the effect of sanctions and comes up with a different result to your first link… yawn.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 10:09 pm

                      “The UK might have disagreed, but the EEC sanctions remained in place because that's how a single marketplace establishes its trade rules.”

                      But the UK didn’t only disagree, they didn’t line up with the EU on the sanctions.

                      “The divestment that your first link clearly states was larger before sanctions were introduced.”

                      The link showed that divestment was significant after the introduction of sanctions.

                      “The divestment that several of your links clearly state was mostly the result of boycotts and business decisions relating to the SA economy, not sanctions.”

                      “The disinvestment campaign, after being realized in federal legislation enacted in 1986 by the United States, is credited by some[2] as pressuring the South African Government to embark on negotiations ultimately leading to the dismantling of the Apartheid system."

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

                      “And unless your "case in point" link actually calculates the effect of sanctions and comes up with a different result to your first link… yawn.”

                      The link refers to studies that do precisely that. Now most seem to indicate sanctions have little impact. And yet there is that last, very inconvenient comment about South Africa.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 10:27 pm

                      lol

                      The entire divestment campaign? Again? You are incapable of restricting yourself to the topic at hand.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 10:54 pm

                      “The entire divestment campaign? Again? You are incapable of restricting yourself to the topic at hand.”

                      I was responding to YOUR comment:

                      “The divestment that several of your links clearly state was mostly the result of boycotts and business decisions relating to the SA economy, not sanctions.”

                      In case you missed it, the quote refers specifically to the divestment campaign being enshrined in legislation in 1986.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2019 at 11:18 pm

                      lol "enshrined". You do love to overstate shite when you don't even understand it.

                      Anyhoo, introductory paragraphs saying "some" people might support a position on the impact of sanctions (when you've said repeatedly that the efect of sanctions wasn't the topic of discussion) aside, you're as entertainingly stupid as ever.

                      Classic shadders.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 August 2019 at 11:28 am

                      “lol "enshrined".”

                      Yes. In 1986. I guess you needed to look the word up in the dictionary?

                      “Anyhoo, introductory paragraphs saying "some" people might support a position on the impact of sanctions (when you've said repeatedly that the efect of sanctions wasn't the topic of discussion)…”

                      …shows that even as an attempted diversion you haven’t got a clue.

              • Incognito …
                12 August 2019 at 7:51 am

                BTW, I never even mentioned Iran. Take some time to read my posts if you actually want to comment.

                Iran and Venezuela were both mentioned in the first sentence of the OP, which happens to your favourite sentence to cite. Take some time to re-read the first sentence of the OP and the whole OP because it is obvious that you are only using it as platform for your anti-socialist rants. You are most definitely twisting words and meanings to suit your own narrative – it is your MO.

                • Shadrach …
                  12 August 2019 at 1:09 pm

                  I never mentioned Iran. You were responding to my post, not the OP.

                  • Incognito …
                    12 August 2019 at 6:44 pm

                    I can follow the thread just fine, thanks. Iran was mentioned in the OP, in the first sentence. In Vino commented on the correctness of the OP. You were replying to In Vino’s comment. Every time somebody mentions Iran, because it is in the OP, you start to protest obtrusively “I never mentioned Iran”. This is because it doesn’t suit your narrative, which you’re trying to force upon us. You seem to think that we will bow to you and that it is all about you while in reality, we’re responding to the OP and wiping the floor with your silly detractions and poor reading comprehension.

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:04 pm

                      "You were replying to In Vino’s comment. "

                      About socialism in Venezuela. A country specifically referred to in the OP. So yeah I was responding directly to the OP. Just not in a way you like. Get over yourself.

                    • Incognito []
                      13 August 2019 at 10:46 pm

                      You deliberately misread In Vino’s comment just as you misread the OP. Just admit it.

                    • Shadrach …
                      14 August 2019 at 7:03 pm

                      "You deliberately misread In Vino’s comment just as you misread the OP. Just admit it."

                      You've misread just about everything I've written. Just admit it.

                    • Incognito []
                      14 August 2019 at 10:06 pm

                      I tried, honestly, I tried. But it was impossible to read and make sense of your gibberish.

                    • In Vino …
                      19 August 2019 at 6:53 pm

                      Shadrack, my comment was exactly as Incognito said, and you are deliberately misconstruing it. Are you a dumb-ass, or are you deliberately lying? Your choice.

                    • David Mac …
                      19 August 2019 at 7:04 pm

                      Are you guys sure you're focused on what's important?

                    • David Mac …
                      19 August 2019 at 7:14 pm

                      People, we start with people and fan out from there. Environs first, family, village, globe.

                      We will never save our home planet while we continue to play stupid games of leverage like sanctions.

                      Anyone conspiring with a motivation like "How can we hurt them?" It's not a step forward.

                    • David Mac …
                      19 August 2019 at 8:11 pm

                      The way to make everything ok is to make women the boss of everything.

                      This remedy has never failed for me.

            • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.1.3
              19 August 2019 at 8:11 pm

              "Shadrack, my comment was exactly as Incognito said…"

              Which comment? The one where you stupidly claimed that sanctions against SA were "not all that many economic"? Or the one where you stated that "I think he knows that the sanctions applied to South Africa were not aimed at crippling South Africa's economy" when I never claimed otherwise? I’d really like to know, because your comments have hardly been informative.

              "Are you a dumb-ass, or are you deliberately lying? Your choice."

              #3. You were talking out of your arse and I called you on it.

              • McFlock …
                19 August 2019 at 8:35 pm

                #3. You were talking out of your arse and I called you on it.

                Not according to the links you provided.

                • Shadrach …
                  19 August 2019 at 8:49 pm

                  Precisely from the links I provided. When as many as 30+ countries engage in sanctions, that qualify as more than not many. When those sanctions cover the extent of the countries economy my links show, then that qualifies as more than not many.

              • In Vino …
                19 August 2019 at 9:43 pm

                The comment Incognito was referring to, obviously. What kind of backsliding dissembler are you??

          • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.2
            11 August 2019 at 11:33 pm

            The first sentence of the OP was:

            "Autonomous sanctions imposed on Iran and Venezuela by the US are expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change."

            I even quoted that in my response, which was to point out that the sanctions were not required to achieve any of that. Socialism was achieving that all on it's lonesome. So no, I haven’t twisted anything. You seem to be having some trouble understanding the point, that is all.

            • lprent 7.1.1.1.2.1
              12 August 2019 at 7:03 am

              Iran isn’t socialist?

              Personally I’d argue that Venezuela hasn’t been particularly either – the primary approach of its government under Chavez was nationalistic with the veneer of socialism and a jammed up partisan political system. Just like the US is currently quite nationalistic with a veneer of capitalism and jammed up partisan political system. Both have a crony political system with economic favours being down for political advantage.

              • Shadrach …
                12 August 2019 at 1:11 pm

                I didn't even refer to Iran, either way. I doubt there is any nation on the planet that has pure socialism or pure capitalism. But the Venezuelan regime, like it or not, has gone well done the path to socialism, a path well trodden with failure.

                • KJT …
                  19 August 2019 at 8:57 pm

                  Funny how the countries which have gone "furthest down the path to socialism" including New Deal USA, which went a lot further than Venezuela, BTW, have been the most successful societies in human history.

                  • Shadrach …
                    19 August 2019 at 9:05 pm

                    Clearly you don't understand what constitutes socialism.

                    • KJT …
                      20 August 2019 at 1:06 am

                      It is you that confuses Socialism with authoritarian communism.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 9:40 am

                      No, I understand the nuances of political and economic systems quite well. Although drawing a link between socialism and authoritarianism does have some historical basis.

                    • KJT …
                      20 August 2019 at 3:42 pm

                      Not as strong as the link between right wing fascism and authoritarianism.

                      In fact socialist countries tend to be democratic.

                      It is Oligarchies who need secret police.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 7:04 pm

                      "In fact socialist countries tend to be democratic."

                      Yeah, of course. Like the Soviet Union, and it's satellites. The problem with socialism is that it doesn't take long for the citizenry to realise how oppressive it is as an economic system, at which time it's leaders have to begin political repression to keep the masses under control.

                      Conversely, capitalist and mixed market economies thrive on private property ownership and individual effort, and so by default tend to be more free.

                    • KJT …
                      20 August 2019 at 8:08 pm

                      Like the huge long list of countries where the population willingly voted for right wing Capitalism, Eh?

                      The USA has now killed more people removing democratic Governments, to impose right wing dictatorships, than Stalin did.

                      Who needs violence to get people to use their economic system, again?

                      Meanwhile the most socialist countries have the worlds highest standard of living. And the most stable societies.

                      Keep going down your delusional rabbit hole.

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 8:35 pm

                      "Like the huge long list of countries where the population willingly voted for right wing Capitalism."

                      Generally capitalism and mixed market economies exist in democratic countries, yes. NZ being a good example.

                      "The USA has now killed more people removing democratic Governments, to impose right wing dictatorships, than Stalin did."

                      Really? Your evidence?

                      "Meanwhile the most socialist countries have the worlds highest standard of living."

                      Such as?

                    • Shadrach …
                      20 August 2019 at 8:47 pm

                      "In 2017, the highest standard of living was in Liechtenstein, with $139,100 per person."

                      https://www.thebalance.com/standard-of-living-3305758

                      “Despite its limited natural resources, Liechtenstein is one of the few countries in the world with more registered companies than citizens; it has developed a prosperous, highly industrialized free-enterprise economy and boasts a financial service sector as well as a living standard that compares favourably with those of the urban areas of Liechtenstein's much larger European neighbours.”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein

            • Incognito 7.1.1.1.2.2
              12 August 2019 at 7:49 am

              Please allow me to paraphrase you:

              Socialism=bad and sanctions=whatever

              • Shadrach …
                12 August 2019 at 1:17 pm

                Yep, socialism sucks. It is generally linked to an oppressive government (mostly because the citizenry soon come to understand how stupid it is) and abject economic ruin.

                Sanctions, well I'm not a fan. They only seem to hurt the poor. In South Africa local corporations made huge profits when foreign owners ditched shares.

                • Incognito …
                  12 August 2019 at 7:00 pm

                  Your reading miscomprehension and prejudice are such that you seem to think because socio-pathology and socialism have the same root, they have the same negative connotation.

                  If you had actually properly read the OP, you might have realised that the words “socialism” and “socialist” do not appear, not once. You might actually realise the OP is about sanctions. Further, and here it might get too technical for you, the OP wasn’t about just any sanctions but a special case of sanctions (e.g. see first sentence of the OP) that are “in many ways worse than overt warfare”.

                  • Shadrach …
                    12 August 2019 at 11:07 pm

                    "If you had actually properly read the OP, you might have realised that the words “socialism” and “socialist” do not appear, not once. You might actually realise the OP is about sanctions."

                    Sanctions that the author blamed for outcomes that were already happening due to socialism. Your sensitivity to criticism of your pet project is amusing though.

                    • Incognito …
                      13 August 2019 at 11:00 pm

                      My pet project cannot be found on this site.

                      Sanctions that the author blamed for outcomes that were already happening due to socialism.

                      Incorrect again. The Author did not exclusively blame the sanctions for certain outcomes; he talked about the intentions of sanctions (or rather of the Governments) to achieve these outcomes and the fact that the NZ National Party fully supports those intentions and aspires to be a minion of the US. In any case, it is a nation’s sovereign right to determine their own path and fate; in some places, it is called freedom, human rights, and democracy. Sanctions are anything but.

                    • Shadrach …
                      14 August 2019 at 7:05 pm

                      "The Author did not exclusively blame the sanctions for certain outcomes…"

                      Oh how convenient, the addition of the word 'exclusively'. I never claimed he did claim anything 'exclusively'.

                      "In any case, it is a nation’s sovereign right to determine their own path and fate; in some places, it is called freedom, human rights, and democracy. "

                      Indeed. Including imposing sanctions on another country.

                    • Incognito []
                      14 August 2019 at 10:03 pm

                      My apologies, I should have worded it better.

                      You said:

                      Socialism was achieving that all on it’s lonesome. [my emphasis]

                      And you said, repeatedly in various variations:

                      Sanctions that the author blamed for outcomes that were already happening due to socialism.

                      So, it is you actually who argues that the sanctions were not responsible for the outcomes that were already happening. The Author never went for an either-or binary cause of outcomes but you did. It never occurred to you that sanctions on an already fragile economy and nation could indeed have disastrous effects on its population. It is like kicking somebody who is already down.

                      Indeed. Including imposing sanctions on another country.

                      Dear oh dear! Clearly, not all sanctions are equal in intention and outcome. Cultural sanctions are not quite the same as the sanctions that the Author was referring to in his first sentence that have or are a “deadly force”. You should become a policy writer for Simon Bridges. Are you also in favour of meddling into a sovereign nation’s politics and running subversive political interference?

                    • Shadrach …
                      14 August 2019 at 10:21 pm

                      "So, it is you actually who argues that the sanctions were not responsible for the outcomes that were already happening. The Author never went for an either-or binary cause of outcomes but you did. It never occurred to you that sanctions on an already fragile economy and nation could indeed have disastrous effects on its population. It is like kicking somebody who is already down."

                      Why would you think that never occurred to me? Venezuela has not had sanctions imposed by every country on the planet. They can still trade with any number of other nations. But it's good that you are admitting that socialism had already stuffed their economy.

                    • Incognito []
                      14 August 2019 at 10:33 pm

                      The sanctions did nothing; all damage was caused by socialism. Right?

                      I did not admit such a thing; it is that beam coming out of your own mind that is reflecting back and burning the evil word on the back of the inside of your skull: msilaicos. Do you feel the burn?

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 9:28 am

                      "The sanctions did nothing; all damage was caused by socialism. Right?"

                      Geez your comprehension really is poor. I never claimed any such thing. But watching you dance around how sanctions work here and not there, and misrepresenting my comments is a thing of beauty. Do you feel better?

                    • Incognito []
                      15 August 2019 at 10:48 am

                      You claimed repeatedly that “that the author blamed for outcomes that were already happening due to socialism” [your words, BTW, I’m just quoting and mentioning them] and “Socialism was achieving that all on it’s lonesome” [your words again]. I can’t help it if you fail on your own logic. I feel sorry for you; you seem so confused.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 5:06 pm

                      "You claimed repeatedly that “that the author blamed for outcomes that were already happening due to socialism” [your words, BTW, I’m just quoting and mentioning them] and “Socialism was achieving that all on it’s lonesome” [your words again]. "

                      Yep, and yep. But I never claimed sanctions did ‘nothing’.

                    • Incognito []
                      15 August 2019 at 5:57 pm

                      That’s because you fail to fully comprehend your own comments.

                      You masterly deflected from the message of the OP and I have spent enough time on you to know that you don’t comment in good faith here. I foresee a ban for you, after a warning, of course.

                      Bye for now; it won’t be long, I’m sure about that.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 6:03 pm

                      "You masterly deflected from the message of the OP…"

                      Nope. The author claimed that sanctions against Venezuela were "expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change." I simply responded that any sanctions were a bit late, when socialism had already stuffed Venezuela. Since then you've been chasing yourself around after my comments. Sad.

          • Shadrach 7.1.1.1.3
            11 August 2019 at 11:50 pm

            "There is a tendency on the political left to avoid placing blame on a party seen as weaker. Thus in a dispute between the United States and Venezuela, the bias is to blame Venezuela’s woes on outside actors. But at most, the United States is playing a small role. Venezuelan government policy is largely of its own making, and the country’s economy was imploding a long time before the U.S. imposed broader sanctions under the Trump administration."

            https://2020watch.org/2019/01/25/venezuelas-economy-was-imploding-long-before-trump-imposed-sanctions-suggesting-bernie-sanders-is-right-to-blame-Maduro/

            • KJT 7.1.1.1.3.1
              12 August 2019 at 7:27 am

              Regurgitating Fox news myths, seems to be your specialty.
              There is a tendency on the political right, to blame a "Socialist" Government, which has been in power for a short time, for many decades of right wing corruption, inequality, rascism, poverty and authoritarian rule.

              Chavez had significant success in reducing poverty, raising the amount of educated people in Venezuela, reducing inequality and removing corruption.

              Despite being no more socialist than our National party.

              Which, of course is why the USA could not let them succeed.

              • Shadrach …
                12 August 2019 at 1:06 pm

                The socialist government in Venezuela has not been in power for a 'short time', but good try. If Venezuela was the only example of the failure of socialism, you might have a case. Unfortunately for you, it is one of many,

                • dv …
                  12 August 2019 at 1:07 pm

                  it is one of many,

                  NAME them.

                  • Shadrach …
                    12 August 2019 at 1:15 pm

                    The entire former soviet block. Google it.

                    • dv …
                      12 August 2019 at 1:38 pm

                      NOPE you made the statement YOU justify it.

                      OK then explain how the ENTIRE soviet block has failed

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 1:40 pm

                      I just did. The entire former soviet block.

                    • KJT …
                      12 August 2019 at 4:34 pm

                      An authoritarian oligarchy.

                      Russia was democratic and socialist for an entire two weeks, before the Bolsheviks and Stalinists took over.

                      Meanwhile Democratic socialism has worked extremely well.

                      Including the US new deal and New Zealands welfare state. Until you and your cronies, fucked it!

                    • Shadrach …
                      12 August 2019 at 11:16 pm

                      "Russia was democratic and socialist for an entire two weeks, before the Bolsheviks and Stalinists took over."

                      Rubbish.

    • reason 7.2
      11 August 2019 at 7:02 pm

      Apartheid Israel is the one you should be comparing to Apartheid south africa ….

      The coup in Venezuela is also a racist minority who can not take power through elections, ….. Hence

      In the case of Venezuela, Secretary General Antonio Guterres has offered his good offices in mediating and the High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet has endorsed the call for mediation. The problem is that the opposition wants to come to power by force – by a coup

      The usa are doing your killing, that you don't care about …… shradach

      Sanctions are clearly the 21st century’s deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

      America’s economic sanctions have killed more innocent people than all of the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ever used in the history of mankind.

      The United Nations estimates that 1.7 million Iraqis died due to Bill Clinton’s sanctions; 500,000 of whom were children. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/01/sanctions-of-mass-destruction-americas-war-on-venezuela/

      Socialism

      In 1967 Libya was one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time Colonel Gaddafi was assassinated, Libya had become Africa’s wealthiest nation.

      NATO destroyed and raped it …… War Capitalism ?

      Trump hired Elliot Abrams as U.S. Special Envoy for Venezuela,

      • Shadrach 7.2.1
        11 August 2019 at 11:29 pm

        The moment you labelled the only enduring democratic state in the Middle east 'apartheid' is the moment you lost any sense of reason.

        • KJT 7.2.1.1
          12 August 2019 at 7:32 am

          Where is your moral compass?

          No wonder why you support the sanctions against Venezuela. Starving and/or bombing civilians is just part of "realpolitik" eh?

    • Mike Smith 7.3
      12 August 2019 at 5:56 am

      @ Shadrach 7

      I did support the anti-Springbok tour boycotts – as far as I know they did not kill anybody

      • Shadrach 7.3.1
        12 August 2019 at 1:22 pm

        That's a sidestep. You didn't mention 'killing people' in your OP, you said the sanctions were "expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change. They are sociopathic." First of all I'm not sure where you get your evidence that the sanctions were 'designed' for that purpose. Secondly, the economic sanctions against SA significantly benefitted the rich.

        • In Vino 7.3.1.1
          12 August 2019 at 6:45 pm

          Shadrach, are you deliberately playing the idiot? The OP was about current sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. It was you who introduced the false equivalence of South Africa. Iran has suffered such US -led sanctions before, and it is recognised that for lack of medicine, etc, thousands of Iranian children died. When asked whether this was justified, some right wing US lady official actually claimed that it was.. Such deaths never occurred in South Africa because of any sanction – the Apartheid Govt was economically powerful, and the nominal economic sanctions were full of holes.

          It now seems that the US wants Venezuelans to suffer like the Iranians already have, and may well again.

          South Africa is irrelevant to this situation, as is the nonsense you peddle.

        • Incognito 7.3.1.2
          12 August 2019 at 7:10 pm

          That's a sidestep. You didn't mention 'killing people' in your OP, you said the sanctions were "expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change.

          I apologise! You don’t have an issue with reading comprehension at all! It is your eyesight and you need reading glasses toot sweet.

          Sanctions are the only form of warfare where it is considered both legal and acceptable to deliberately target a civilian population with deadly force. [my bold]

          It is in the OP, FYI.

          The OP, however, did not mention SA; you brought that into your narrative because it suited you. Everybody else is looking straight through you so why don’t you give up this charade?

          • Shadrach 7.3.1.2.1
            12 August 2019 at 11:13 pm

            "It is in the OP, FYI."

            No, it isn't. The 'Deadly Force' reference is a quote from another source, not from the author.

            "…you brought that into your narrative because it suited you. "

            Nope. I brought that up to test whether or not the author was a supporter of sanctions against South Africa, because they were also economic in nature.

            • Incognito 7.3.1.2.1.1
              13 August 2019 at 11:17 pm

              The Author used that specific quote in his Post for a good reason and thus reinforced the quote. Sometimes, others say it so well or so much better that a quote is preferred. He further confirmed this, in his own words, in his reply to you @ 7.3. You have missed the meaning of the OP and misunderstood his reply to you. Get over yourself and admit that you are dancing on a pinhead.

              So, you were no asking a question and interested in the answer for the purpose of debate; you were testing the Author to see how he’d fail to confirm to your narrative and trying to set up a gotcha moment. Nice one!

              The economic nature of sanctions is not sufficient an argument. Never mind.

              • Shadrach …
                14 August 2019 at 7:09 pm

                I, you have a serious reading deficit. I said this:

                "You didn't mention 'killing people' in your OP, you said the sanctions were "expressly designed to drive whole populations into poverty to bring about regime change. They are sociopathic.""

                You is the OP writer. The OP writer never mentioned 'killing people'. He quoted someone else who did.

                "You have missed the meaning of the OP and misunderstood his reply to you. "

                The only person misunderstanding here is you.

                • Incognito …
                  14 August 2019 at 9:33 pm

                  mention

                  /ˈmɛnʃ(ə)n/

                  verb

                  1. refer to (something) briefly and without going into detail.

                  Now you mention it, the Author did mention it in a quote in his OP, and then later in his comment. Don’t mention it.

                  • Shadrach …
                    14 August 2019 at 10:17 pm

                    The author did NOT mention it, even by your own definition. He quoted someone who did.

                    • Incognito …
                      14 August 2019 at 10:25 pm

                      <sigh>

                      He mentioned it in and by a quote. In other words, he referred to it. I can give you a whole list of synonyms of mention, if you like.

                      You are really struggling with the English language, aren’t you?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2019 at 10:29 pm

                      shadders struggles more and more with basic English as the shadderhole being dug gets deeper and deeper. It's classic shadders, lol

                    • Incognito []
                      14 August 2019 at 10:39 pm

                      It is like watching a so-called functioning alcoholic and wondering how on Earth they manage to do it. It is frightening to watch, I can tell you.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 9:25 am

                      "You are really struggling with the English language, aren’t you?"

                      No, I’m really not. The author did not refer to it. He referenced a quote from someone else. Your stretching of credibility to justify your own poor comprehension is humorous.

                    • Incognito []
                      15 August 2019 at 10:54 am

                      No, I’m really not. The author did not refer to it. He referenced a quote from someone else. [my italics]

                      It is official: you fail English reading comprehension and basic logical reasoning; the two words even have the same etymology. Sad.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 5:11 pm

                      "It is official: you fail English reading comprehension and basic logical reasoning; the two words even have the same etymology."

                      You really are slow.

                      Mention – 'to make mention of'

                      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mention

                      The 'author' did not 'make mention' of it. He quoted from someone else who did.

                    • Incognito []
                      15 August 2019 at 5:30 pm

                      I hate to bring it to you but from your own link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mention#synonyms

                      Synonyms for mention
                      Synonyms: Noun
                      acknowledgment (or acknowledgement), citation, commendation

                      Synonyms: Verb
                      advert (to), cite, drop, instance, name, note, notice, quote, refer (to), specify, touch (on or upon) [my emphasis]

                      There’s more if you need it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/mention

                      So sad.

                    • Shadrach …
                      15 August 2019 at 5:39 pm

                      You fell right in.

                      You have cherry picked the definition that suits your argument. So can I. There it is. But it was me that made the comment. Only I know what I meant. The OP author did not mention 'killing people'. He quoted another writer who did. There.

                    • Incognito []
                      15 August 2019 at 5:43 pm

                      Only I know what I meant.

                      QED

  8. Incognito 8
    11 August 2019 at 9:59 pm

    If only the National Party would show such independent and forthright thinking on Climate Change, for example. As always, it is about power & control and money. It is indeed a hallmark of socio-pathology to defend the indefensible whilst claiming the moral high ground in standing up for our Kiwi values, our freedoms, and our liberties. They would sell us out to the highest bidder claiming that it is good for us.

    “National is supportive of efforts to reduce emissions, however we must also ensure our approach manages economic impacts and is in line with a global response.

    https://www.national.org.nz/national_supports_climate_change_bill_but_with_major_concerns

  9. vto 9
    12 August 2019 at 6:26 am

    That spells it all out clearly for me and the next ten years of National Party policy… no need to see or hear more…

    Ignorantly evil

  10. Gosman 10
    12 August 2019 at 11:05 am

    Were targetted sanctions against Zimbabwe justified then? These were imposed by a Labour led government.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1241205

    • Grant 10.1
      13 August 2019 at 8:32 am

      Do you not understand the difference between sanctions carefully TARGETED at members of a regime and more generalised sanctions designed to simply cripple the economy of an entire nation state?

      • Gosman 10.1.1
        13 August 2019 at 10:55 am

        LOL! Yes I do and I also know that the governments in the nations involved don't make a distinction between the two. They argue both are "illegal".

        • Grant 10.1.1.1
          13 August 2019 at 11:51 am

          The OP is not about sanctions TARGETED at elite members of a rogue regime. It is about whether GOVERNMENTS have the right to drive POPULATIONS into poverty by using generalised widespread sanctions as an economic weapon designed to cause regime change. I for one care not a jot whether Mugabe and Co. whined about the targeted sanctions being illegal. That is neither here nor there. However YOU PERSONALLY tried to tie targeted and generalised sanctions together as though they were the same thing in order, presumably, to muddy the waters of the debate. I find your debating tactics to be disturbingly dishonest Gosman.

  11. Gosman 11
    12 August 2019 at 11:11 am

    I'm fascinated why countries that are generally "anti-imperialist" and/or "anti-Western" and/or "anti-Capitalist" need to be able to trade freely with and have financial support from the nations that they are hostile towards.

    • KJT 11.1
      12 August 2019 at 11:19 am

      Like the "anti communist" USA, depending on China, for bailout loans?

      • Gosman 11.1.1
        12 August 2019 at 12:30 pm

        Umm… China is Communist in name only and the US is not trying to argue that the Chinese system should be brought down.

    • adam 11.2
      12 August 2019 at 11:48 am

      So gossy underneath all the rhetoric your a stinking imperialist. No surprises there then…

      Like so many libertarians before you, scratch the surface and a totalitarian comes rolling out.

  12. David Mac 12
    12 August 2019 at 11:35 pm

    Sanctions offer Mafia like leverage. If you want to apply pressure to someone, threaten their family.

    Stupid barbaric way of getting someone to do what you want if you ask me.

    The only quality way to get someone to do what you want is to persaude them to feel that way themselves and take the steps because they wish to.

    Holding a gun to the people's wellbeing is no solution, it's escalation.

    • Gosman 12.1
      13 August 2019 at 7:52 am

      Did you disagree with NZ inposing sanctions on Zimbabwe then David Mc?

      • Grant 12.1.1
        13 August 2019 at 8:33 am

        See my reply above.

      • David Mac 12.1.2
        13 August 2019 at 12:18 pm

        With a few notable exceptions, like a general population requesting them, I think they're fundamentally flawed Gosman.

        Cutting off the medicine my daughter needs to live is a foolish way to get me to do something differently. I might play along for a period, save my girl's life, but for all the wrong reasons, reluctant temporary compliance at best. Govt applied sanctions are hate/fear incubators.

        If you punch me Gosman, my immediate response is a desire to punch you back harder. I want to be a person that will respond by securing your hands, buying you a beer (with straw) and talking.

        Sanctions are about 'Slap me will you! I'm going to slap you back harder.' They're destructive, not constructive.

    • Gosman 12.2
      13 August 2019 at 7:53 am

      What about sancrions against Apartheid South Africa?

      What about the BDS movement against Israel?

      • Grant 12.2.1
        13 August 2019 at 8:45 am

        The BDS movement consists of international individuals and businesses who are non-state actors making their own personal decisions about whether they can stomach doing business with a country whose citizens overwhelmingly support their Goverment’s actions and policies which many people find to be nauseating. Any time the Israelis feel an economic pinch I guess they could cut back on throwing bombs at Gaza and put the money into civilian needs instead.

        As far as South Africa is concerned, I have a clear memory of the ANC and others (Bishop Tutu??) begging the world to impose sanctions because the pain would be worth it in the long run and things couldn't get much worse for them anyway. After sanctions were imposed and actually started to bite a bit they reiterated their approval of this method of bringing the apartheid regime to the table. Are you too young to remember this or are you just being dishonest?

        • Gosman 12.2.1.1
          13 August 2019 at 10:53 am

          There are lots of non State actors in the nations involved that are supportive of sanctions against Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

          • Grant 12.2.1.1.1
            13 August 2019 at 11:40 am

            The OP and thus the debate below it is about whether GOVERNMENTS have the right to drive POPULATIONS into poverty and deprivation.

            I pointed out that BDS was not applicable to the debate in hand yet you still continue down this spurious line of argument.

            Are you intellectually dishonest or just hard of thinking?

            • Gosman 12.2.1.1.1.1
              13 August 2019 at 11:52 am

              I am addressing the points you raised about South africa where you are seemingly arguing that if some people in a country are supportive of sanctions against that nation then the sanctions are valid. Why does this situation not apply to Venezuela?

              • Grant …
                13 August 2019 at 12:08 pm

                And again you muddy the waters. Is this deliberate or do you have trouble with linear thought processes?

                My comment at 12.2.1 was clearly divided into two parts responding to two separate issue you raised.

                In your response at 12.2.1.1 You conflated these two quite separate points to try and create a new line of argument.

                I do not believe that you can be so stupid that you can't distinguish between BDS and the US govt using sanctions to create regime change. Nor do I believe you can't see the difference between the situation in Venezuela now and that of Sth Africa during the apartheid era.

                I am left with no option but to believe that you are a deliberately duplicitous smart-arse.

                • Gosman …
                  13 August 2019 at 12:22 pm

                  I don't see the difference between the situation in Venezuela now and South Africa in the 1980's. In both cases there was an undemocratic regime carrying out appalling policies that were hurting the majority of the population.

                  • KJT …
                    20 August 2019 at 1:12 am

                    Except Venezuela has a democratic Government, which the majority support.

                    Which the USA has been trying to remove by destroying their economy.

                    Because the US civilian enthusiasm for the other option. Bombing them into changing their Government, has waned, since other recent similar adventures have proved so costly.

      • Incognito 12.2.2
        13 August 2019 at 10:42 pm

        Oh dear, whataboutism, the rhetorical tool of a fool. People who do not understand the OP and the meaning or message of the Author often use it. Another group of people use it to set up a false equivalence in order to deflect from the OP and push their own barrow; they are disingenuous and not interested in genuine debate in good faith. A few rare individuals fit in both groups.

  13. Grant 13
    13 August 2019 at 9:02 am

    Not a major issue but if a mod could remove my surname from my previous comments please?

  14. greywarshark 14
    19 August 2019 at 10:04 pm

    What a learned discourse.

    • roblogic 14.1
      20 August 2019 at 11:15 pm

      Yes, I have learned that capitalism is great, sanctions are great, and big government intervention is cool if it stops those horrible socialists from spreading democracy