PDA

View Full Version : Sanctions and Travel Bans by the UN and or Other Countries.....



MMC
08-03-2011, 10:21 AM
We always hear of the UN and other foreign countries, as well as our own. Always impose sanctions. Freezing of Assets and issuing travel bans for those who have sanctions applied against them. We see Nations can also have sanctions imposed upon them.

But do these sanctions really mean anything other than affecting individuals financially. Have these individuals broken any laws which they have been convicted under? If they do not keep their money in any one elses banks or like in Swiss Bank Accounts which are noted for their secrecy. Then how are they affected financially? Should justice issues prevail? Are these individuals all always connected to the sactions thru their postions in Government? If so and they are following a chain of command should these types of PUNISHMENTS BE IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL WIHOUT COURTS OF JUSTICE?

What other sanctions does one think applies besides the stopping of Military Arms and Weapons? http://www.politicalhotwire.com/images/smilies/bbc/f_whistle.gif

Mister D
08-03-2011, 10:25 AM
Sure. Sanctions can have far reaching effects. For example, the populations of Cuba and Iraq suffered under economic sanctions.

Conley
08-03-2011, 10:26 AM
I look at it like gun control laws, in that the criminals are still going to ignore the laws and get whatever weapons they can.

Seems to me sanctions do a great job of hurting the lower classes but the rich and powerful avoid them exactly like you say, money in other countries, companies that do purchasing, travel, etc. Saddam and his families still lived like kings, and I do think it weakened the military in Iraq, but likely it hurt the common man much, much worse. Sanctions are one of the few acts that can be taken in such a situation though...I don't think there is an easy answer.

Mister D
08-03-2011, 10:49 AM
I look at it like gun control laws, in that the criminals are still going to ignore the laws and get whatever weapons they can.

Seems to me sanctions do a great job of hurting the lower classes but the rich and powerful avoid them exactly like you say, money in other countries, companies that do purchasing, travel, etc. Saddam and his families still lived like kings, and I do think it weakened the military in Iraq, but likely it hurt the common man much, much worse. Sanctions are one of the few acts that can be taken in such a situation though...I don't think there is an easy answer.


They do cripple economies so they work but the ruling class doesn't suffer. Their ambitions might and I guess that's the point but the regular folks really get screwed. But you're right. What else can you do in that situation?

MMC
08-03-2011, 11:52 AM
Well I guess they do work when affecting a Nation. But I think the Sanctions against them individually do not work. Nor how can they when there are countries that are willing to accept their money and put them up for hospitality and that are allies together? :-\

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 11:56 AM
it is the same as the bombs, america kills innocents and the leaders escape. this is not a good way

Conley
08-03-2011, 11:58 AM
I would rather our military go up against an army weakened by years of sanctions rather than the alternative. They aren't entered into lightly and for all intents and purposes are an act of war (a blockade).

Mister D
08-03-2011, 12:03 PM
I would rather our military go up against an army weakened by years of sanctions rather than the alternative. They aren't entered into lightly and for all intents and purposes are an act of war (a blockade).


Sanctions are rough but they aren't applied without serious considertion. I agree.

MMC
08-03-2011, 12:11 PM
Plus lets not forget like with Libya they want Qadhafi out.....yet would grant him immunity to just walk away. Even to prevent him from standing trial for crimes against humanity. :-\

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 12:19 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(

MMC
08-03-2011, 12:35 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


Ghengis Khan, Kublai Khan, Napolian, Stalin, Hitler.....just to name a few. ;)

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 12:38 PM
so you think george w bush as bad as they are?

MMC
08-03-2011, 12:47 PM
so you think george w bush as bad as they are?


Not even close..... ;D

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 12:50 PM
so if qadafi should be tried for crimes against humanity what about george w bush

he is a war criminal too maybe?

MMC
08-03-2011, 12:56 PM
so if qadafi should be tried for crimes against humanity what about george w bush

he is a war criminal too maybe?


They will never try Qadhafi for war crimes.....plus the US has already told him that he will not have to worry about standing trial. Also the AU will not go for him being putting on any sort of trial. They are also for not removing Qadhafi from power if he does not want to go.

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 01:09 PM
but you think he should yes? be tried

Mister D
08-03-2011, 01:38 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


That assumes all killing is morally equivalent. It's not.

hellraiser
08-03-2011, 04:45 PM
you think american lives are worth more than others but you are wrong again my friend

Conley
08-03-2011, 06:26 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


How can anyone presume to know? Further, the U.S. military very clearly takes steps to limit civilian casualties. Often at the price of achieving military objectives. IMO it's irresponsible for you to run your mouth like this.

edit: I don't mean to be too harsh, but comparing Dubya to Hitler is just moronic.

Mister D
08-03-2011, 06:35 PM
you think american lives are worth more than others but you are wrong again my friend


Do I? What make you say that? Please be specific.

Mister D
08-03-2011, 06:38 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


How can anyone presume to know? Further, the U.S. military very clearly takes steps to limit civilian casualties. Often at the price of achieving military objectives. IMO it's irresponsible for you to run your mouth like this.

edit: I don't mean to be too harsh, but comparing Dubya to Hitler is just moronic.


Yes, the US military does bend over backwards to limit civilians casualties. For example, the siege of Fallujah. The US left the siege lines for weeks to ensure that civilians could be evacuated...along with most of our enemies of course.

Conley
08-03-2011, 06:46 PM
you think american lives are worth more than others but you are wrong again my friend


Do I? What make you say that? Please be specific.


The short answer is that nothing you said suggested that.

Conley
08-03-2011, 06:48 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


How can anyone presume to know? Further, the U.S. military very clearly takes steps to limit civilian casualties. Often at the price of achieving military objectives. IMO it's irresponsible for you to run your mouth like this.

edit: I don't mean to be too harsh, but comparing Dubya to Hitler is just moronic.


Yes, the US military does bend over backwards to limit civilians casualties. For example, the siege of Fallujah. The US left the siege lines for weeks to ensure that civilians could be evacuated...along with most of our enemies of course.


Exactly.

Somehow, I don't think Gaddafi would do the same.

Mister D
08-03-2011, 07:22 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


How can anyone presume to know? Further, the U.S. military very clearly takes steps to limit civilian casualties. Often at the price of achieving military objectives. IMO it's irresponsible for you to run your mouth like this.

edit: I don't mean to be too harsh, but comparing Dubya to Hitler is just moronic.


Yes, the US military does bend over backwards to limit civilians casualties. For example, the siege of Fallujah. The US left the siege lines for weeks to ensure that civilians could be evacuated...along with most of our enemies of course.


Exactly.

Somehow, I don't think Gaddafi would do the same.


Neither would the Russians or the Chinese.

Conley
08-03-2011, 07:33 PM
Exactly...the Chinese for one don't show any compuction about running down their own civilians, much less those of other countries.

I don't see this happening in Times Square.

http://www.islamtimes.org/images/docs/000006/n00006141-r-s-000.jpg

spunkloaf
08-03-2011, 07:45 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


That assumes all killing is morally equivalent. It's not.


Murder is murder. How people perceive it is what seems to matter. That perception can change from scenario to scenario. A person seeking vengeance. An accident. A person defending themselves. A soldier fighting a war. When all is said and done, it's just people killing other people. Any justification is only needed so that society can cope with it.

Mister D
08-03-2011, 07:52 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


That assumes all killing is morally equivalent. It's not.


Murder is murder. How people perceive it is what seems to matter. That perception can change from scenario to scenario. A person seeking vengeance. An accident. A person defending themselves. A soldier fighting a war. When all is said and done, it's just people killing other people. Any justification is only needed so that society can cope with it.


What you mean to say is that killing is killing. Yes, what constitutes murder (i.e. the unjustified taking of life) may vary from one society to another but, no, there is no equivalency between killing and murder in any society.

Conley
08-03-2011, 08:03 PM
It is tough to draw the line between 'collateral damage', killing, and murder though.

I don't envy having to make the decision to open fire. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :(

spunkloaf
08-03-2011, 08:35 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(


That assumes all killing is morally equivalent. It's not.


Murder is murder. How people perceive it is what seems to matter. That perception can change from scenario to scenario. A person seeking vengeance. An accident. A person defending themselves. A soldier fighting a war. When all is said and done, it's just people killing other people. Any justification is only needed so that society can cope with it.


What you mean to say is that killing is killing. Yes, what constitutes murder (i.e. the unjustified taking of life) may vary from one society to another but, no, there is no equivalency between killing and murder in any society.


Thanks for the correction. It leads me into a new line of thinking. There should be no such word as murder. No taking of life, or taking of anything should be justified.

MMC
08-04-2011, 01:04 PM
who killed more george w bush or qadhafi?

it is honest question

i think we all know answer :(



Example.....madman killing innocent people. Straps bomb to himself and hold over a hundred people hostage in a small room has enuff explosive to take out 3 city blocks. Says he will kill all and gives some ridiculous offer like he wants God to deliver him a pizza.

Is there no justification for killing what cant or wont allow itself to be captured.....yet wants to take others with himself. As you can see there are justifcations for the taking of anothers life.
What about one dying from a disease that puts that individual in never ending pain? But can't committ suicide due to some relgious belief.

That assumes all killing is morally equivalent. It's not.


Murder is murder. How people perceive it is what seems to matter. That perception can change from scenario to scenario. A person seeking vengeance. An accident. A person defending themselves. A soldier fighting a war. When all is said and done, it's just people killing other people. Any justification is only needed so that society can cope with it.


What you mean to say is that killing is killing. Yes, what constitutes murder (i.e. the unjustified taking of life) may vary from one society to another but, no, there is no equivalency between killing and murder in any society.


Thanks for the correction. It leads me into a new line of thinking. There should be no such word as murder. No taking of life, or taking of anything should be justified.