Broad alliance forming against Iran

[karsen]

Not related to the broad alliance against Iran but a couple weeks back Globe Trekker (PBS) went to Iran. They don't deal with politics, only the people and touristy things but Iran looked like a really neat country. I was surprised to see they had ski resorts.

[StarGlazer]

[quote JoeH]For example, Libya.
Sanctions may have helped, but it can also be argued that the threat of force was the true motivation. Libya agreed to the dismantlement of it's nuclear program in December 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq to eliminate its "weapons of mass destruction." See:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/...index.html

[JoeH]

That was only at the end of a long string of concessions. For instance the turnover of the accused in the Pan Am 103 case was in 1999, years before the Iraq example to Libya. Iraq may or may not have had any influence on the agreement to dismantle, until Gaddafi talks it is only conjecture. At most it may have sped things up, the talks to do so had been in progress on and off for some time before the US went into Iraq in 2003. One approach by Libya had been in 1999 at around the same time they were in negotiations to turn over the accused in the Pan Am case, the US chose not to follow up at that time. Some of that speed up may have been within the Bush administration, it allowed them to make announcement of the "success" of their approach in Iraq.

[StarGlazer]

[quote JoeH]For another, Iraq. In Iraq, they may not have led to Saddam being thrown out of power, but did severely limit the ability of the country to rearm over the 10 year period. That was at least a partial success.
I agreed they were effective for ten years. However, what is never mentioned anymore in our national debate about the Iraq war is that the UN was considering lifting the sanctions on Iraq when the U.S. decided to invade. Without sanctions or invasion, Saddam would have been able to re-arm and re-start his WMD programs.

(Folks, I really am trying to have a discussion about the effectiveness of sanctions, not rehash the great debate about the validity of the Iraq war. Please, if at all possible, don't flame the thread or me. Thanks.) :?

[StarGlazer]

[quote JoeH]That was only at the end of a long string of concessions. For instance the turnover of the accused in the Pan Am 103 case was in 1999, years before the Iraq example to Libya.
Thanks for jogging my memory. Sanctions certainly did work in bringing the Pan Am 103 accused to trial.

[guitarist]

True, except for those two nations, the rest of the free world is definitely on Iran's side, and agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel is a stain on Islam that must be erased.

The west should back off on all this reckless war rhetoric. I hope Iran finishes developing those nukes soon, so it can fulfill Khomeini's promise to end the occupying zionist regime in Jerusalem permanently, and restore peace and prosperity to the middle east.

[JoeH]

Of course we will never know if the sanctions would have kept on working in Iraq, that path into the future is now closed. But it would have only taken a veto from the US to keep the sanctions on Iraq from being lifted by the Security Council at the UN.

As for the rest, there are more examples of sanctions working more or less well. It is just that the Libya and Iraq examples are a bit closer to the top of my memory. One, partially a success, the other more successful. Mostly brought them up since you could not recall ones that had worked. Their place in my memory comes from having a Lebanese brother-in-law, results in having an interest in what will affect my sister and her family. In any case, sometimes they work, other times they don't. When they do, it often takes years and patience before the outcome can be considered a success. Overall, in the Libya case nearly 20 years altogether. Some sanctions were in place as early as 1985 or thereabouts in time.

[laarree]

[quote guitarist]The west should back off on all this reckless war rhetoric. I hope Iran finishes developing those nukes soon, so it can fulfill Khomeini's promise to end the occupying zionist regime in Jerusalem permanently, and restore peace and prosperity to the middle east.
Surely you're being sarcastic or joking. Smileys help in posts like this, you know.

[Lux Interior]

[quote Grateful11]McCain/Bush style, shoot first ask questions later.
Unfortunately, the questions are like,

"Now what do we do?"

"I dunno. I thought they would be throwing flowers at us, not grenades!