Sanctions work?

[2Slow]

Would someone please refresh my memory?  Sanctions and diplomacy, has it ever worked?  By worked I mean, has it ever imposed our will on another nation?

[~Caligula~]

They seem to have made Kaddafi change he`s mind.And not selling the soviet block high tech wasn`t such a bad idea either. As far as Iran...I don`t belive they`ll work.

[cpxxx]

Libya being one. It never works when one country goes it alone. Cuba being a classic example. It never worked in Cuba serving only to reinforce the regimes popularity and making the USA look foolish.

Sanctions could only work when there is a united worldwide effort. That is rare.  Libya shows how it could work.

But it's cheaper than war and kills less Americans and the less people of the country being sanctioned.  War doesn't always work either. Witness North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and some would say Iraq!

[Dago]

Well, we did shoot a missle into Kaddafi's tent, only missed him by a little, and we did kill his son.  Maybe that got his attention and brought him a little more into line?  I think that added some insentive to the sanctions to behave.

[Hangtime]

AFAIR, There were a couple of clubs bombed in Germany.. GI's died. CIA said "Libya". Reagan retaliated, attacked Mohmar with F111's, got his infant son. We lost a jet. The French were pinheads, forced a go-round thru Gibralter for the raid elements outta England..  Then Mohmar ordered Lockerbie. Then we went with sanctions. French never complied with the sanctions either. Around in here somewhere, the Falklands popped up. French supplied the Argentinians with exorcets and actully hung 'em on planes for 'em during the conflict... but i digress..

First, Nightclubs in West Germany, then the raid, then Lockerbie, then sanctions.

That sound right?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Around in here somewhere, the Falklands popped up. French supplied the Argentinians with exorcets and actully hung 'em on planes for 'em during the conflict... but i digress..

"But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status, Argentina performed the military reconquest of the Falklands Islands - called Malvinas in Spanish language - usurped by the British government in 1833. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended.

Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began."

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html

[Dago]

Originally posted by Hangtime
French were pinheads,  

Would this be a case of stating the obvious, or is using French and pinheads in the same sentance just redundant?

IN before skuzzy gets me.

[Curval]

Originally posted by 2Slow
By worked I mean, has it ever imposed our will on another nation?

lol

[Delirium]

No, sanctions do not work because not every country is going to respect them.

Take a look at the 'Oil for Food' in Iraq.. numerous countries, groups, and even the UN itself circumvented it.

Gone are the days the UN had any ability to do much of anything to ease suffering and bring peace to a land... welcome back League of Nations.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Nilsen
"But on April 2nd 1982, when the 2nd Squadron was waiting the arrival of the French technical team to put the Exocets in an operational status, Argentina performed the military reconquest of the Falklands Islands - called Malvinas in Spanish language - usurped by the British government in 1833. One of the first acts of the French government was to declare a weapons embargo against Argentina until the conflict ended.

Of course, it deprived the 2nd Squadron of the possibility of being assisted by French technicians but the Argentine personnel of the unit, far from giving up, faced on their own the challenge to set up the Exocets. Two weeks later, the interface between airplane and missile had been solved, and the tests on anti-ship strikes began."

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html

Bzzzzzzrrrrrtttt.

The Argentinians had no previous experience with antiship missiles, and the Exocet was a complicated and cranky weapon. The Argentinians experienced a lot of trouble fitting the Exocet launch system and rails to the Super Etendards. In November 1981, Dassault Aviation, owned by the French government and builder of the Super Etendard, sent a team of nine of its own technicians (and some additional French Aerospatiale specialists) to work with the Argentine navy to supervise the introduction of the Etendards and Exocets. Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems. Without the technical help and collusion from the government of France—Britain’s NATO “ally”—it is improbable that Argentina would have been able to employ its most devastating weapon.

Airpower, Aug 2002 (USAF publication)

[FiLtH]

Sanctions say.." World opinion prefers we impose sanctions...atleast for awhile. We know it will eventually come to war...but atleast we tried something else first."

[2Slow]

"Libya being one. It never works when one country goes it alone. Cuba being a classic example. It never worked in Cuba serving only to reinforce the regimes popularity and making the USA look foolish.
"

My exact point.  I knew someone would cite Libya as a success.  NOT TRUE! Libya got out of the terroism business after we struck.  Libya got out of the nuke business after we invaded Iraq.  Sanctions and diplomacy accomplished nothing.

Iran is stalling.  They don't think we have the will and means to impose our will on them.  Perhaps we don't.  Perhaps the Israelies do.

If Iran wants nukes so bad, then let's give them some 1 kiloton at a time until they think they have enough.

In a world of ideal secrecy, one could put 1 kiloton on their weapons plant and let them claim a success at testing their first one.  Or we could deny the whole thing and blame it on them having an accident.

Either way, the entire world would get the message.  There is no point is carrying a big stick and walking/speaking softly if no one believes you will use the big stick.

That's my rant.

[Seagoon]

Hi cpxxx,

Originally posted by cpxxx
But it's cheaper than war and kills less Americans and the less people of the country being sanctioned.

Not usually. Sanctions bring long term economic hardships on the poorest members of the country being sanctioned. Witness Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan (while it was under Taliban control) and Iraq. Generally speaking the evil tyrants in control aren't going to leave office or switch policies merely because their people or economies are suffering, after all they've already spent years making their people suffer in order to maintain their own power and pursue their goals. So long term sanctions on lunatic regimes, end up meaning more people suffer and die over a longer period than if you had just invaded the country. Sanctions actually have the undesirable effect of giving them a scapegoat. Your children are starving because of the Western [insert: infidels, imperialists, as appropriate] but we will not buckle, etc.

Had Kennedy actually committed to a full-scale invasion of "Cuber" instead of the miserable Bay of Pigs debacle, Cuba might not have had to go through over 40 years of oppression, misery, and economic hardship.

- SEAGOON

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Seagoon


Had Kennedy actually committed to a full-scale invasion of "Cuber" instead of the miserable Bay of Pigs debacle, Cuba might not have had to go through over 40 years of oppression, misery, and economic hardship.

- SEAGOON

Yup. And because of the Bay Of Pigs Castro wigged and begged Unca K for REAL military support.. and he got it; right on down to the tactical fleet killin nukes the local commanders were authorized to use on their own judgement should the US try the invasion bit during the 'missile crisis' two years later.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Bzzzzzzrrrrrtttt.



Airpower, Aug 2002 (USAF publication)

hmmmm

"François Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft, identical to the ones it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. France provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it sold to Argentina. In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies". [1]

In 2005, a new book on the life of Mitterrand gave a different account of French cooperation, quoting him as saying - "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!". "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." [citation needed] However there is no evidence for the claim.

The effects of France's actions during the war have contributed to Argentina's shift toward American sources for combat aircraft and upgrades (e.g. the A-4AR Fightinghawk, a refurbished A-4 Skyhawk). The country's national aeronautical manufacturing company FMA (Fábrica Militar de Aviones) is now owned by Lockheed-Martin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#French_involvement

another:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F13%2Fnot13.xml