Historically, when has a sanction worked?

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
60,026
63,125
3,605
Just say'in.

I mean, what sanctions could ever hold down a despot hell bent on war?

Hmm?

Also, FYI, higher taxes don't make global temperatures go down either.

But that is for another thread.
 
So, I'll pencil you in for ''supports total nuclear war'' since you seem to think more than sanctions is necessary - and you are talking about a Nuclear power (Russia).
 
So, I'll pencil you in for ''supports total nuclear war'' since you seem to think more than sanctions is necessary - and you are talking about a Nuclear power (Russia).
"Sanctions or nuclear war."

Apparently these are the only options that democrats have in their tool box. How sad.
 
"Sanctions or nuclear war."

Apparently these are the only options that democrats have in their tool box. How sad.
Do you--do you know what 'The Cold War' was? Because yes, you are correct, those are the options.

Hence Russia and America, you know, doing nothing but talk for 50 years....because nobody wanted nuclear war.
 
Just say'in.

I mean, what sanctions could ever hold down a despot hell bent on war?

Hmm?

Also, FYI, higher taxes don't make global temperatures go down either.

But that is for another thread.

South Africa maybe, and that took decades.
 
What else is there?

complete embargo. Zero trade with Russia.

The problem is Germany is gonna run out of Natural gas, and costs for Strategic minerals is going to go through the roof unless you can convince South Africa and few other southern African countries to increase output.

Even without using Military force getting Russia to quit will require pain on the part of the rest of the world, I wonder if they/we are willing to put up with that.
 
Minding your own business. It would be different if there was something that could be done. Unless you want all out war again, there isn't.

Ukraine will damage Russia just like Afghanistan did to both Russia and the U.S.

Ukraine doesn't have the terrain or the hardened population for that.
 
Ukraine doesn't have the terrain or the hardened population for that.

Seems to me that they are fighting back and if not, you can not save people from themselves. We are not going to accept dead American's returning in boxes because of our past failures so the options are few.
 
Seems to me that they are fighting back and if not, you can not save people from themselves. We are not going to accept dead American's returning in boxes because of our past failures so the options are few.

What if he decides to gun for Poland, or the Baltic States, i.e. NATO members?
 
And completely tore up the country, to the point that it's nothing but black crime now, and a president who wore leopard skin skirts and had 32 wives.

The first decade or two wasn't bad. The problem is what has happened in other African countries is happening there now, and it's devolved into cronyism and corruption.
 
You do know why NATO was founded, and what happens is Russia attacks a NATO country, right?

I watched this great movie. It's called "They Shall Not Grow Old". At the end one soldier was asked what he hoped would be taken from what happened during WWI. He said he hoped we learn to never do anything like that ever again. Well, obviously we didn't.

If a country isn't interested in being taken over, they have to fight back. We were defeated in both Iraq and Afghanistan by people who decided that. WWII doesn't happen if people didn't simply walk into the trains.
 

Forum List

Back
Top