Have applying sanctions to a country ever worked, or is it a pretext for a declaration of war?

Answer 1

stuff like that is used so the enemy can't get tank parts to fix the tanks, so that when the invasion happens the enemy is so weakened that the united states can invade with force and speed

Answer 2

Yes applying sanctions have actually worked in the past, the only example i can think of is Libya. After the terrorist activities of the 80's Reagan bombed Libya back into the stone age and then levied crippling sanctions on them. These sanctions stayed in place through the Bush Sr. administration and the Clinton administration. They were lightened recently When Libyan leader Mohammad Qaddafi begged the U.S. to lift them. So far they have been peaceful.

The problem with sanctions is the rest of the world has to honor them. Sanctions from a few countries are ineffective another country simply steps in and supplies everything. Also it is hard to apply sanctions if a country does not have trade relations, which is why the U.S. cannot apply affective sanctions in the Sudan and darfur.

Answer 3

No we don't have to go to war. We sanction many countries. Don't we sanction the Sudan and brought a ton of their people here to a town in Mass. the the racist mayor stated that they could no longer support them and he was drug through the fire by the media. After checking it turned out there was no way for them to support so many, maybe Bush could send them to Austin. The mayor said they also took over businesses. Many sanctions don't work as in the countries that are killing the Christians, but that's theri right and left to the UN.

Answer 4

I asked this same question of my wife just a few days ago. I cannot think of a single example of where sanctions actually worked to bring about peaceful change. Libya is the closest example given so far, but it was only after crippling them with war first.

Cutting off a country from goods they need only serves to make their people more angry and determined. No country of people can possibly enjoy the idea of relying on another country for its survival. It may weaken them, but it does not serve the purpose of making them bow to the desires of the imposing countries. It serves as a catalyst of hatred and self-reliance.

Sanctions against Japan led to the invasion by Japan kicking the U.S. into WWII. Sanctions against Iraq led to the "Iraqi threat" which created the mess we are in today. Sanctions against Cuba led only to isolating Cuba. They were perfectly capable of handling this situation and are now very self-reliant. Also, you could say it has fueled the drug trade.
Nobody here, so far, has given a reasonable example of sanctions having actually worked to bring about peaceful change.

However, for the most reliable answer, try this article from forbes listed below. They put the figure of success between 5 and 55% - lol. After reading it, I can see where it is effective in low level changes, such as enforcing environmental regs, combating money-laundering, reaching out for targeted individuals, etc. But on the high level political goals, like trying to oust a leader, change the political climate of a government, stop nuclear proliferation, etc., sanctions are a very weak tool.

Answer 5

Sanctions have worked in the past and continue to do so. North Korea has been softened up because of sanctions. South Africa succumbed to world demand to end apartheid because of sanctions. Other examples of countries in all parts of the world can be found where sanctions have worked.

Answer 6

Sanction can be called preemptive strike. Remember, countries that threaten American interest are getting sanctioned, if they don't tow the line they get invaded, but why does the country of Chavez not sanctioned at all, at this early stage he should be stopped because pretty soon he will start harboring terrorist to attack us. Which keeps me wondering.. what did the US do to Chavez that he starts ranting against us? Could it be because our dumb president did something to anger him?

Answer 7

Maybe it worked in the case of South Africa and Aparthied.

Answer 8

Well, since you have effectively disparaged both options, you tell us how to approach the situation.