BruceVC

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil. Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is irrelevant to the Jong-il family South Africa is an anomaly in regards to sanctions, and if they even worked there is questionable. It's very noteworthy that the sanctions that ultimately were imposed on South Africa came about due to a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from it's citizens and grassroots movements in the U.S. Both the U.S. government and the U.K. government (Mr. and Mrs. Sanctiondecider-Giver on planet earth) were more than happy to allow South Africa their apartheid system before it became political suicide for U.S. representatives to not impose them. Without so much pressure from the U.S. citizenry those sanctions would never have happened. And this is the only instance of sanctions in history I can think of that came about this way. Normally, and in every other case I can think of 'sanctions' are an aggressive imperialistic tool initiated on levels in society that are anything but grassroots, whose goals tend to not what they are advertised to be to the world at large and are anything but noble. (see Sarex's earlier linked documentary for a good example) In regards to sanctions on Iran... I don't think they accomplished all that much really, at least insofar in what they were advertised to try and accomplish. It remains to be seen what the ultimate affect of sanctions will have though. And I think it's definitely debatable if they're even a good idea to begin with as the ultimate affect of them may blow up in the faces of those imposing them (possibly just about literally). Iran is one of the more interesting subjects in the world though, and one of the most mis-advertised in the western world. If you want to see a decent documentary on what sanctions can do to a nation watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHn3kKySuVo You might just change your mind on the idea that sanctions are a good thing. There's another documentary out there on the subject that's even better but I can't recall the name of it right now (watched it years ago). Of course that the U.S. and U.K. even hold the power they do to impose sanctions on anyone is a troublesome issue in and of itself, and on many levels, many of which don't reach face value for your average person. But that's a world banking system thing, didn't ya know? I read that link about the effectiveness of the sanctions against South Africa and it makes an interesting read, so good points But it doesn't really change one of my earlier statements for exactly the reasons I mentioned. The sanctions against South Africa weren't effective because they weren't severe enough. There are numerous examples in that article of how certain South African exports weren't blocked so the economy was able to arguably sustain itself. But if you use sanctions to block all exports and don't allow a country's financial institutions to do business with other international banks, like they did in Iran, you will put massive economic pressure on any country as we live in a global world where exports and imports are critical to the health of country's economy Also as your link mentions there is the psychological pressures associated with sanctions that aren't very nice for a country on the receiving end. I remember during Apartheid going on holiday to Austria and meeting this Swedish girl in a bar. When I told her where I was from the first thing she said to me was " well I don't like racists". This brought home to me how people saw all South Africans despite the fact my family and I were liberals and didn't support Apartheid. Finally to be fair to the West the main reason IMO that Western powers didn't address Apartheid was because South Africa was also opposed to Communism and was involved in several proxy wars against the USSR and China throughout Africa. The Cold War was ongoing and Communism was the greater evil than Apartheid for many Western leaders. Your article also alludes to this

Last night after dinner I decided to treat myself to something delicious but decadent, I ate 150 grams of ripened Stilton Cheese with Melba biscuits ....it was yummy

I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. Here is an interesting link that discusses exactly what you have mentioned, the fact that in many cases the historical contribution of women in society has been marginalized http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon Thanks for the welcome! I've actually been here for a couple years, posted a little teeny bit at the beginning and then went dark here until just recently...but anyway, thanks again! If you guys are interested in understanding the perspectives of many members aroound Romance in PoE i would suggest you read this thread. Its long and people joke around a bit but it does reveal different views around Romance and also why they won't be in PoE ( also it may seem the majority of people don't want Romance but thats not true, its just that the ant-romance crowd are very loud ) http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65125-the-case-for-romance/

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil. Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is irrelevant to the Jong-il family

"Exactly Volo".... yeah you know your perspective is in serous trouble when you have call Volo to support your point ( and I see you recognize that ) Both you 2133 are not going to drop the circumstances of the Yanukovich "resignation/being disposed". Is this the most important factor to you around the situation in Ukraine? Is this the reason that for you Russia has iillegally entered Crimea and is basically about to annex it, so in other words the whole crisis is caused by the reasons how Yanukovich was removed from power?

"secret super-difficult secret romance:...

oh, we suspect that he/she understood us. is easier to claim we in unintelligible than it is to refute. ... we will say that he/she woulda' been better off avoiding use "o "sunshine." is clear we struck a nerve. is better off not to admit such when trying to claim that Gromnir postings is indecipherable. one o' the more inept attempts to marginalize our posts that we has seen, but not unique. HA! Good Fun! Gromnir I can understand your posts but it takes time to focus on the structure of what you are saying, but for someone where UK English isn't there first language I can imagine it will be difficult. So don't think people are being facetious when they say " they don't understand your posts" ...there may be truth to that

I agree with you on this, you aren't a Troll. But you aren't interested in engaging in debate and you never respond in a reasonable time to comments which is frustrating

I know Canada is one and the other one slips my mind.....

At least we buried the dead, ours were just left face down in the dirt mutilated beyond recognition. But hey they don't count right... Sarex, Gorgon has raised a good point. It may just be better if the USA annexes Serbia, you guys could become the 53 state? What do you think..it may work nicely?

You right I didn't explain myself properly, for sanctions to be effective they need the USA to be involved as they have major influence on the IMF and other financial institutions, and they would never declare those types of sanctions on themselves

Well, it's not like they ever actually set a firm date (beyond 'sometime in 2014') in the first place. Oh well, however long it takes to get it right is fine by me. Yeah for me this is no issue at all, I just want CPR to be comfortable with the final release. I do think there W3 project is ambitious so I want them to have all the time they need

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful

Well welcome to the forums, I am enjoying your posts and input Oh and welcome to the forums as well Silvermoondragon

What do you mean my point? How is that related to anything I've been talking about. I'd almost go as far as to ask what the point in this line of questioning is. The fact that they are optional doesn't make them immune to criticism. Downright ridiculous to think otherwise. It's like saying "Hey, that mage armor sure is awkwardly designed, but because I'm playing a warrior then I can't really comment". I've just spent most of my previous posts discussing my feelings on how I feel romances have become shallow. - What is there to prove? There's nothing. I'm stating my opinion in regards to a question a user earlier asked me about whether I felt I was in this or that crowd. Feel free to disagree I wouldn't say he is a Troll but don't engage in serious debate with him or get upset with him. He doesn't care about the principle of debating etiquette

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office. His removal did not require an impeachment process. You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want. It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!! For the nth time. Read the source material and try to produce an original thought for once. But at least we've finally shed the fake friendliness façade, that's something right? Come on I'm just teasing, I'm still the friendly person you know me for..thats no facade

Oh Kaine something else, I really enjoyed your posts because it made me realize how utterly silly the campaign sounded. This just vindicates my decision to drop it, so you unintentionally helped me "Low blow, using the b-word like that Volo....

Really ???...Never It doesn't make you any less funny ...really made me laugh

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office. His removal did not require an impeachment process. You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want. It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!!

Low blow, using the b-word like that Volo. Kiaine you are the only one taking this seriously, well played....I imagine its hard with the other members dismissing the idea

Okay I'm not going to push this one, I am a realist and if a good father and liberal like Hurlshot thinks its stupid than that is my benchmark to realize this is an ineffective way of spreading the message. And I genuinely mean that, I'm not being sarcastic. Thanks for all the input, I'll focus on other campaigns that will be more effective

Please read the link above in my post, I think you have completely missed the main points of the website

Once again its not about the word but what the word symbolizes around this campaign. The campaign is about the word. Oh they have other stuff too, don't get me wrong (some of it a bit of a headscratcher to me), but they wouldn't target the word if it wasn't about the word. But as you say, the word is a symbol (and not really a symbol of what they say - a bossy person is a bossy person and has never to my mind indicated gender) and the problem isn't the word or really what it means and in that sense I think they're terribly misguided in their approach. Like many social movements they attack the symptoms in the hope that they'll damage the root cause when they should be attacking the root cause which will render the symptoms meaningless. IMO. You make some good points, but for me banning the word is not the real point of the website. There are much more relevant points made on the website to allow young women to become future leaders. Please read this link, and read it properly if you don't mind, and you'll see there is not much reference to actually banning the word http://banbossy.com/wp-content/themes/leanin/ui/microsite/ban-bossy/resources/Ban_Bossy_Leadership_Tips_for_parents.pdf?v=1&77f96d

Wow, thats very well done What are you studying?