|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Seems like you don't actually know what is sanctioned if you are asking that. Even if I didn't, I could always take a statement from the White House on the results. https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1501987871707779076?s=20&t=ww33ONrRCJRszrqSjUE_tQ
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Nearly half the country's renters are housing cost burdened. A quarter severely so. Working as intended of course but still holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Well, in the last thread here's people that argued for sanctions: None of those make the argument you wish they had made. And again, you're arguing that if they were, they were right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:None of those make the argument you wish they had made. Wrong. It is very possible to argue that sanctions by the US government are bad because they hurt the citizenry and that dramatic change is necessary in the US even if it might hurt the citizenry. The converse is hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:None of those make the argument you wish they had made. This all goes back to Mellow Seas making the point: "Transitioning from one government/constitution to another is not easy and would produce massive amounts of hardship (if not an outright war), most of which would fall on the most vulnerable" Which happens to be the entire point of sanctions. So if you are pro-sanctions you are pro massive amounts of hardship. So again, why is forcing hardship to generate regime change overseas acceptable, but regime change shouldn't take place here because of the hardship that would be generated? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
This graph speaks to something that I had sort of perceived, but hadn't seen specific numbers for: the northeast is getting less expensive relative to the rest of the country. I don't think it's restricted to housing prices, either. Inflation has just been subdued here relative to other places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Which happens to be the entire point of sanctions. So if you are pro-sanctions you are pro massive amounts of hardship. You know that isn't true, though. You're just asserting it and pretending everyone else is arguing that because you know that conceding that point makes you look a little silly. Like how you are apparently trying to seriously argue that you believe everything Jen Psaki says is 100% true. I don't think you do, but your previous argument would look silly if you didn't commit to the bit. Do you think all taxes are bad for poor people? Or that the purpose of a tax on hereditary estates is to punish the most vulnerable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Purpose is irrelevant, taxes on the poorest are harmful. But sanction talk is just a distraction
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Purpose is irrelevant, taxes on the poorest are harmful. Correct. Do you think that seizing the American held real estate assets and yacht of Igor Ivanovich Sechin is equally harmful to the poor of Russia as preventing the importation of bread and medicine? Or do you agree that sanctions, taxes, and tariffs apply to different things and do not have a blanket effect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
I mean if that's all they're doing I'm not sure why Psaki said we were destroying the Russian economy so it sounds like your disagreement is with the WH
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I mean if that's all they're doing I'm not sure why Psaki said we were destroying the Russian economy so it sounds like your disagreement is with the WH If you are committing to the premise that everything Jen Psaki says is true and accept that, then I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:Nearly half the country's renters are housing cost burdened. A quarter severely so. I pay dead on 30% for housing and barely am able to make save money each month while living a relatively comfortable life. The fact I'm pretty much the median in the country is scary stuff. Mellow Seas posted:This graph speaks to something that I had sort of perceived, but hadn't seen specific numbers for: the northeast is getting less expensive relative to the rest of the country. I don't think it's restricted to housing prices, either. Inflation has just been subdued here relative to other places. I assume part of it is because people are leaving the Northeast and moving to the West and South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I assume part of it is because people are leaving the Northeast and moving to the West and South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:This all goes back to Mellow Seas making the point: "Transitioning from one government/constitution to another is not easy and would produce massive amounts of hardship (if not an outright war), most of which would fall on the most vulnerable" Those people seem to think that sanctions work in many ways(oligarchs only, and such poo poo), and that it's possible for them to happen without mass suffering being the point. I don't agree with them. I don't see anyone who thinks that regime shouldn't happen in the US based on the suffering, I think Mellow is pointing out that it will happen, which people like to gloss over. I'm not sure anyone in the thread is making the argument you're trying to argue against.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:So if you are pro-sanctions you are pro massive amounts of hardship. This is disgustingly reductionist. There are plenty of methods you can support that would not target normal people. Taking away oligarchs yachts and bank account access can pressure the country without taking bread off the shelves. The argument can be made about effectiveness of various methods but painting the argument as "if you support sanctions at all you support mass suffering" is garbage and you know it. I can flip it back on you the other way and say that if you are anti-sanctions in this case, you are pro-genocide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:So you're saying these people didn't understand the consequences of sanctions, and they were arguing from a position of ignorance? Well, uh, that's a weird defense. The point of my post was try to get you to do some self-reflection on what your opinion is. So I'll state it clearly: just because you think that the point (or outcome) of sanctions are always to change regimes, it does not make this a fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I mean if that's all they're doing I'm not sure why Psaki said we were destroying the Russian economy so it sounds like your disagreement is with the WH Saying you're not supposed to take her 100% truthful or seriously is getting into some Trump supporter "He doesn't mean it literally" territory. It's the team you root for always telling you what you want to hear even if that's not at all what came out of their mouths. Just making the argument about sanctions more and more abstract while we have real life sanctions impacting real life famines in real life Afghanistan. Let's just really abstract it, should the international community have imposed sanctions on the US during the Iraq war to convince them to leave the country? It fits all the criteria of why we sanction other countries. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Mar 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The point of my post was try to get you to do some self-reflection on what your opinion is. So I'll state it clearly: just because you think that the point (or outcome) of sanctions are always to change regimes, it does not make this a fact. true, sometimes, as in Afghanistan, the point is exclusively to inflict pain on millions of people for the crime of having made us feel bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The point of my post was try to get you to do some self-reflection on what your opinion is. So I'll state it clearly: just because you think that the point (or outcome) of sanctions are always to change regimes, it does not make this a fact. Even if the goal is less than full regime change, the leverage is still massive human suffering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Saying you're not supposed to take her 100% truthful or seriously is getting into some Trump supporter "He doesn't mean it literally" territory. It's the team you root for always telling you what you want to hear even if that's not at all what came out of their mouths. Just making the argument about sanctions more and more abstract while we have real life sanctions impacting real life famines in real life Afghanistan. Doing the opposite and ignoring the politics, context, or simple fallibility of off-the-cuff comments is no more insightful. Also the sanctions under discussion are those on Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Doing the opposite and ignoring the politics, context, or simple fallibility of off-the-cuff comments is no more insightful. Actually, sanctions, in general, were under discussion, as a counterpoint to arguments based on undesired but likely/all but guaranteed harms to the vulnerable. Saying "Russian sanctions written don't harm the vulnerable" doesn't change that the US bipartisenly enacts sanctions that do. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Even if the goal is less than full regime change, the leverage is still massive human suffering. There is also massive suffering being inflicted upon Ukrainians. More suffering than on the Russian people, that's for sure. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Actually, sanctions, in general, were under discussion, as a counterpoint to arguments based on undesired but likely/all but guaranteed harms to the vulnerable. Psaki's comments were about Russian sanctions not Afghanistan. Bishyaler's claims about regime change, or at least the posters he quoted, were all about Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Psaki's comments were about Russian sanctions not Afghanistan. Agreed. His broader point is correct even if his example isn't. This is why he is changing examples. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
How are u posted:There is also massive suffering being inflicted upon Ukrainians. More suffering than on the Russian people, that's for sure. So human suffering is a zero sum game? In that case who gives a poo poo about the Ukranians when things in Somalia are far worse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Psaki's comments were about Russian sanctions not Afghanistan. Yeah, this weird derail also started days ago and I keep bringing up Afghanistan as an example where we are causing a lot of harm but seem to have no positive effects from sanctions. Really has anyone even established that they work? The argument for sanctions just assumes they work but no one has provided much that quantifies that and the studies out there, like this paper that has been posted a few times, end up pretty inconclusive. http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Regime change at home only. It is base hypocrisy to support it abroad but not here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah, this weird derail also started days ago and I keep bringing up Afghanistan as an example where we are causing a lot of harm but seem to have no positive effects from sanctions. All of the explanations I can find from Biden or similar US officials says the point of the Russian sanctions is to increase the cost of invading Ukraine, so it seems that anyone who agrees that they're hurting the Russian economy agrees that they're working.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
How are u posted:There is also massive suffering being inflicted upon Ukrainians. More suffering than on the Russian people, that's for sure. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:This is disgustingly reductionist. There are plenty of methods you can support that would not target normal people. Taking away oligarchs yachts and bank account access can pressure the country without taking bread off the shelves. The argument can be made about effectiveness of various methods but painting the argument as "if you support sanctions at all you support mass suffering" is garbage and you know it. Targeting oligarchs is what we were told would happen by US officials. We have the White House saying that the Russian economy has been crushed and reports that their money is worth a fraction of what it was. So the White House was clearly mistaken or lying about their ability to use sanctions in a targeted way. The point of sanctions is to create pressure on the regime through human suffering, so yes, if you support sanctions you support mass suffering to achieve political ends. Furthermore, we know that sanctions rarely produce the intended effect, so not only are you supporting human suffering, you're supporting it with a slim chance of success. No, you can't flip it back on me because the answer to genocide is not generating more civilian deaths. That's just petty vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:When the US half penny coin was eliminated in 1857, it was worth the equivalent today of 16¢. The penny minters are proud people, they don't want a government handout. They'd prefer sweating over the minting machine for an honest wage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Papercut posted:All of the explanations I can find from Biden or similar US officials says the point of the Russian sanctions is to increase the cost of invading Ukraine, so it seems that anyone who agrees that they're hurting the Russian economy agrees that they're working. Well yes, that is one way to say they're working if you don't care at all about the negative effects and don't really care if they're necessary or not. If the goal is to tank Russia's economy it's working and it's going to hurt people who have nothing to do with the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Targeting oligarchs is what we were told would happen by US officials. We have the White House saying that the Russian economy has been crushed and reports that their money is worth a fraction of what it was. So the White House was clearly mistaken or lying about their ability to use sanctions in a targeted way. We can probably math this out. How many civilian deaths have the sanctions generated to date, and how many could they? How many have Russia's imperialist war generated, and how many could it? In the short term and the long term, how many civilian deaths will, or could, the sanctions prevent if it assists in ending the war of aggression? We could substitute or include suffering as well, including global effects of both, considering the upcoming wheat issue from the war, and also considering the reports of mass forced displacement as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Those are going to be the results so that is what those people are arguing for. That is an amazing quote and pretty much sums up the whole dynamic between the GOP and the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Two wrongs don't make a right. What would you suggest we do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it is unfortunate to hear that America was a dictatorship for the entirety of Lincoln's presidency. I mean, it was the most dictatory we've ever been by a fair margin. It just also happened to be in the middle of an existential civil war where team secessionist was comically evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:So again, why is forcing hardship to generate regime change overseas acceptable, but regime change shouldn't take place here because of the hardship that would be generated? Cutting out "if you are pro-sanctions you are pro massive amounts of hardship." because it's simply a strawman. Regime change could be acceptable here, for the same reason. Why are you arguing that sanctions on Russia in order to force regime change are unacceptable because of the hardship imposed, but hardship in the pursuit of glorious revolution in the US is okay? I'd have to think about it, but there's an argument that the American revolution was an acceptable regime change that caused hardship. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Mar 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Targeting oligarchs is what we were told would happen by US officials. We have the White House saying that the Russian economy has been crushed and reports that their money is worth a fraction of what it was. So the White House was clearly mistaken or lying about their ability to use sanctions in a targeted way. Let's put aside the idea that the word "sanctions" is a magic totem and the mere presence of the word indicates mass suffering and seizing a yacht has the same impact and goal as sanctioning medicine and bread, I know you have to realize that, but going in circles is silly. Is your position just an a priori belief that economic coercion is wrong? If the issue is supporting collective suffering for political ends, then are you anti-BDS as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:
you weren't addressing me here but I think it's an interesting question so I'll answer: yes! The Iraq invasion was illegal immoral and completely bullshit just like the Russian invasion of Ukraine is today. in my view the primary purpose of sanctions is to destroy a country's ability and willingness to wage war effectively. Ability is constrained by restrictions on trade to deprive the enemy of supplies critical to waging war. Willingness is destroyed by imposing costs on military and civilian populations to decrease the appetite for conquest and curtail support for invasion. To destroy the morale of fighting forces while cutting them off from relief and resupply. In the case of the US invasion of Iraq, sanctions ought to have included restrictions on oil imports by major oil-producing countries. High oil prices would cripple the United States's ability to wage war and would be a highly effective sanction. Rah rah bullshit would die down immediately as sky high gas prices break the back of the US consumer, while simultaneously cripplying supply chains and imposing huge additional costs on military operations, which are fuel intensive. The government would be forced to make critical choices about whether to allow their citizens to absorb the cost of higher prices and keep the fuel for their own military operations, or release military reserves for civilian use. calls to end the war would be momentous, Bush may have even be impeached if he refused to pull out. countless innocent lives could've been saved. I think the Iraq war is a perfect example of a situation where sanctions are appropriate. As a US citizen I would have accepted sanctions from the international community and thanked them for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
How are u posted:What would you suggest we do? I already posted about this. Fister Roboto posted:The alternative is not doing sanctions. I know that basically means doing nothing, but sanctions are worse than doing nothing and produce no positive results. It's kind of like torture on a geopolitical scale, both in cruelty and effectiveness. Fister Roboto posted:Also if the US is actually interested in alleviating human suffering throughout the world, there are a number of things they can do that won't spark WW3, like not giving weapons to the Saudis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 22:31
|
|