Republicans are openly talking about boots on the ground in Syria (border, solution)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

Explain your distinction between economic sanctions and 'leveraging foreign policy using trade and business blackmail.'

You simply quit doing business with them. You don't pressure the rest of the world to do the same.

[Scratch33]

Originally Posted by pknopp

You simply quit doing business with them. You don't pressure the rest of the world to do the same.

And that differs from the current U.S. economic sanctions outlined in the link I provided how, exactly?

And why wouldn't you pressure other governments to sanction a 'rogue' regime as well? What's the downside?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

And that differs from the current U.S. economic sanctions outlined in the link I provided how, exactly?

And why wouldn't you pressure other governments to sanction a 'rogue' regime as well? What's the downside?

We get seen as the bully trying to impose our will on everyone. We would hate a country that does that.

[Scratch33]

Originally Posted by pknopp

We get seen as the bully trying to impose our will on everyone. We would hate a country that does that.

So according to you the U.S. should just "not do business" with rogue and terrorist governments, but keep it's mouth shut about other nations that support them? If trade with other countries makes up for the difference, then what exactly is being accomplished? What leverage are we actually exerting?

And you still haven't explained what distinction you make between the economic sanctions our government has imposed, versus "just don't do business with them".

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

So according to you the U.S. should just "not do business" with rogue and terrorist governments, but keep it's mouth shut about other nations that support them?

No, we should do business with them. Do enough, the people thrive, have things and no longer have nothing to live for.

Once the people are set we have better relations and the country has stronger reasons to listen to our concerns.

If trade with other countries makes up for the difference, then what exactly is being accomplished? What leverage are we actually exerting?

Those in power know they only stay in power because the people are happy.

And you still haven't explained what distinction you make between the economic sanctions our government has imposed, versus "just don't do business with them".

If I get bad service at a restaurant, I just stay away. If I start threatening the restaurant, they make sure I stay away.

[Scratch33]

Originally Posted by pknopp

No, we should do business with them. Do enough, the people thrive, have things and no longer have nothing to live for.

So in about 15 minutes, you've changed from "you simply quit doing business with them" to "we should do business with them".

M'kay.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

Democrats will stay home in droves come November 2016. Hillary is even more hawkish than Obama.

Or will vote in droves since Obama is trying to dance on a tiny point between peace and war, and I wouldn't be surprised if far more Democrats like her stand over his. I don't think its a political question.

And we have boots on the ground, just fewer. We mostly left Iraq and yet we left a door open. It's open even wider than it was before Paris right now.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

So in about 15 minutes, you've changed from "you simply quit doing business with them" to "we should do business with them".

M'kay.

Yes.....we have to do business with them before we quit. Odds are we won't have to.

[jeffdoorgunner]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

A number of economic sanctions against the Syrian government are already in place. Have been for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%...omic_sanctions

Those do not sound like they are effective in the least.

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by Scratch33

And that differs from the current U.S. economic sanctions outlined in the link I provided how, exactly?

And why wouldn't you pressure other governments to sanction a 'rogue' regime as well? What's the downside?

Originally Posted by Scratch33

So according to you the U.S. should just "not do business" with rogue and terrorist governments, but keep it's mouth shut about other nations that support them? If trade with other countries makes up for the difference, then what exactly is being accomplished? What leverage are we actually exerting?

And you still haven't explained what distinction you make between the economic sanctions our government has imposed, versus "just don't do business with them".

This kinda stuff is EXACTLY why we're so hated.

Our job is to worry about OUR affairs, not to bully other nations into doing what we want.

We did business with Turkey although they slaughtered a million Armenians, didn't we?

We rebuilt and then did business with the Germans and Austrians after they murdered millions of Jews, didn't we?

We did business with China after they killed millions of their own citizens, didn't we?

We did business with Indonesia after they massacred hundreds of thousand East Timorese, didn't we?

We do business with the Saudis even though they've been sponsors of terrorism, don't we?

We did business with Chile and Argentina during extremely brutal regimes that killed, tortured, and denied citizens of their human rights, didn't we?

How about Haiti? Guatemala, Iran, etc...?

But you wanna put pressure on other nations to tell THEM what to do and who they should deal with after we destabilized the Middle East?

Is that a joke?