How should the US respond to sanctions?

[kcchiefs6465]

So I ask if our sanctions on Iran were instead imposed on us, do you think military action in that country is justified? If so, who or what exactly do you attack/destroy?

I not only think our military response is justifiable (not to be confused with justified, depending on what the circumstances truly are) I think it would occur before the ink on the sanctions dries. Who would we attack? For starters those who imposed said sanctions. It is hard to compare apples to oranges. We are a global superpower. No one can impose the kind of leverage like we do with regards to other countries joining our sanction demands. Especially not Iran.

ETA: I am not trying to be antagonistic if my posts come off that way. My apologies if I do.

[idiom]

New Zealand won't let US Military vessels visit because they won't declare whether they are carrying nukes or not.

The US has responded with broad economic sanctions. Not particularly bad ones, but yeah the US likes to get its own way.



Well, that's the story. A Free trade agreement would require the US to end subsidies to farmers as New Zealand stopped subsidies ages ago.

So that's not going to happen.

[enoch150]

It's important to remember that sanctions, in this context, amount to import taxes, which harm the domestic consumer. US consumers benefit from EU tax subsidies to Airbus, just as EU customers benefit from US subsidies to Boeing. When the EU imposes sanctions on goods imported from the US, it is harming itself. Retaliating in kind would be the height of stupidity.

Trade sanctions, when they consist of a blockade, are an act of war. Trade sanctions in the form of import taxes are only an act of violence in the same way as any other taxes.

[FindLiberty]

How should the US respond to sanctions?

That's an easy question. The tried and true international response is usually... blowback.

In the case of a superpower like the USA responding to sanctions, typical asymmetric warfare roles are reversed and need not apply. Why dance around with prolonged economic heckling that might take decades to resolve when the enemy could just be physically obliterated and history books re-written as necessary? (Then again, maybe a peaceful solution would be required in case another superpower was the opponent!)

[erowe1]

The article says the sanctions are because of the government giving Boeing subsidies.

The response of our government to this should be to stop giving Boeing subsidies.

[tsai3904]

The article says the sanctions are because of the government giving Boeing subsidies.

The response of our government to this should be to stop giving Boeing subsidies.

The article was just an example. I was looking for a more philosophical response rather than a response to a specific situation.

[tsai3904]

Trade sanctions, when they consist of a blockade, are an act of war.

So what should the proper response be if a powerful country prevents US citizens from purchasing or selling products to their country?

[erowe1]

The article was just an example. I was looking for a more philosophical response rather than a response to a specific situation.

More generally, I would say that the federal government should not respond to them unless its response is something that it ought to do anyway.

[erowe1]

So what should the proper response be if a powerful country prevents US citizens from purchasing or selling products to their country?

Let that country suffer the consequences of its own self-defeating policy.

[Matt Collins]

Sanctions = act of war

Please quit repeating this, they are NOT an act of war, unless the country they are being imposed on considers it an act of war.