| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | irishgit (138)
06/12/2007 | Sounds fine to me, in principle at least, but how is this radical?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | souljunkie (20)
01/03/2006 | I would take it one step further and stop letting anyone from a country who harbors terrorists in! Make them earn the right to live the American dream. I believe then those who want to come here for positive reasons would put pressure on their leaders to help us bring terrorists to justice. I dont see that happening now.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Djahuti (54)
01/03/2006 | The problem with this is that all of the citizens of those countries who are NOT terrorists suffer along with the terrorists.Then the terrorists can easily recruit more people,since the innocent ones become victims of the sanctions.We had sanctions against Iraq for years.Who suffered? NOT the ones who deserved to,that's for sure.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Underspin (24)
01/03/2006 | Sanctions are generally the easiest route to take for penalizing any nation, but its arguable how effective they truly are, esp in toppling a regime. While they can certainly hurt any nation dependent on international trade, sanctions are almost never unilateral. Every nation - whether it is Cuba, Iran or even North Korea - has trade partners/allies that will in some sense compensate for whatever economic sanctions that have been imposed...or in the case of North Korea, enough to at least keep scrapping by, regardless of the toll it takes on it's people.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jamestkirk (23)
01/02/2006 | Yes, and we are getting our points across to these countries right now thanks to the tenaciousness of Pres. Bush.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | LanceRoxas (40)
12/31/2005 |  This is radical? And how exactly do economic sanctions work? The rich ruling classes limit the education levels, completely tyrannize and indoctrinate the lower classes while dividing the national resources, and revenues amongst themselves. Are we arguing a successful foreign policy would be to limit the direct import of say, oil, to our nation from that particular nation? It simply wouldn't work and would only increase the price of a commodity we presently need for our economy to function. How would that limit terrorism? The hard fact about limiting terrorism is that there are very few options; and they all involve the military and intellegence agencies. Saddam kept violating sanction after sanction while enriching himself and starving off his enemies- another round of sanctions would be the answer to defiance? No, unfortunately the only other option after sanctions is bombing the hell out of him and invading. Would sanctions had hurt the Taliban? Come on! This is radical- give me a break.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | frogio (47)
12/30/2005 | If by "sanctions" you mean tear them a new a**, I'm in...
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-7 OF 7 | View All |
