http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/09/68499808/1 So Presidents Obama and Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown have commented that they want heavier sanctions against Iran. Why do we keep going down this road? When has it ever worked? We've had sanctions against North Korea, Cuba, and the Sudan, and all it's done is to give a scapegoat to their tyrannical governments. Sanctions failed miserably in Iraq. For the most part, it seems that when sanctions are imposed, the countries close off further. By my count, sanctions have only worked once: in South Africa. That doesn't seem like much of a track record. Why do we keep trying?
What's the definition of "worked"? The other side says "I give up, your powerful sanctions are too strong, I hereby abandon this crazy position." Sanctions are a disincentive, though not always a dispositive one. That doesn't make them valueless.
That is my definition. Powerful nations cut off trade, South Africa ends apartheid, Iran gives up Nuclear Weapons, North Korea ends its War against the US.
Probably because no white man has ever set foot in Africa to do anything other than mine and trade. There's no cultural or religious pride at stake, just mile-and-a-half deep diamond mines that are possibly worthless without Western demand. You think there are too many McDonald's in this country, how many jewelry stores are there in every mall in every single town in America?
Right. I can't think of a single natural resource that Iran has in abundance and the Western World has an insatiable demand for. Any pop into your head?
