Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (78522)	7/28/2006 10:30:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

You think bombings like we have seen in Beirut causes lesser deaths! Possibly. Less than a thousand have died in Lebanon. Weren't we told over and over that hundreds of thousands were dying in Iraq due to the sanctions?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (78522)	7/31/2006 6:48:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Quite possibly. Leaky sanctions have little impact. Serious sanctions and blockades can cause mass starvation. It depends on the exact situation. Direct violent attacks kill faster. But they can be better targeted. Sanctions probably don't touch the leaders of your enemy directly, and often only do minimal harm to the infrastructure of the regime. They can do a lot of harm to the people. Someone like Saddam or the leaders of Hezbollah are unlikely to be moved by such harm. So if the sanctions are actually tight they can kill people for years or even generations while achieving nothing. Of course sometimes violence can continue for generations and also achieve nothing. I'm not universally endorsing violence as a solution to any crises. That would be unreasonable, and if taken seriously dangerous. But the idea of trying to get Hezbollah to change through sanctions is a laughable one, at least if Iran and Syria do not join seriously in the blockade that you suggest.