Week 1 Number$ vs. Baller

[FromTheSouth]

This debate will be judged by GD.

The thread will close next Sunday at 6PM CST.

Number$ will be affirming the topic.

Resolved: In relation to econmic sanctions, the ends justify the means.

 

[a0161613]

(Good luck Baller)

In life, you have to make decisions.

By nature some of these decisions are going to be unpopular. It’s a simple fact. Politicians, judges....management roles in general mean some people get paid to make the tough calls.

I’ve been on the end of tough calls. Having been made redundant twice I can now look back and understand that at the time the decision needed to be made. It may not be a popular idea at the time and maybe the companies involved regret it but it had to be made to secure the short term future. On a daily basis, companies are living on the edge because the difficulty that this decision poses and the risk on offer.

Sanctions on the economy are one of the toughest things to call. This most recent global recession is the obvious example. Years of spending money without consequence finally came back to kick the worldwide economy in the ass, so of course resolutions needed to be swift and stiff. Due to the drastic nature of the problem at hand, it was inevitable that the answers were going to require a change in attitude.

An increase in taxes, being the most obvious sanction, is going to affect everyone but like everything, the ends absolutely justifies the means because so long as the future of public services such as national health, social services and public transport are secure for the long term.

Popular, schmopular. It may be ugly but people are paid to get results and politics is no popularity contest. It’s a results industry.

 

[Baller]

First off, good luck to Number$, and may the best debator win.

_________

Now, I will debate that in relation to economic sanctions, the ends WILL NOT justify the means.

Well to begin my debate, I would like to put the definition of the phrase "the end justifies the means": If the objective is good, then it doesn't matter the way we can achieve that objective, even if its bad or evil.

Now in relation to economic sanctions, the government's goal in placing an economic sanction is to penalize the country for something that they felt have done wrong. For example, the United States placing an embargo on Cuba for 50 years now, and the United States putting sanctions on Iran, on the basis of terrorism.

When a country places an economic sanction on another country, what does it really accomplish?

Effects of a economic sanction.

The answer to that question is simple: Killing hundreds of thousands of people, when one main point of these sanctions is to avoid warfare, when it still reaches the same results.


For example, the United States sanction on Iraq. Since 1991, 237,000 children under the age of 5 have been killed due to sanctions, with some reports going as high as one million. This number of just children under 5 year olds, defeats the number of Iraqis killed in the Persian War directly, just hitting over 40,000 civilian and military.

These sanctions, killed the lives of many who died to malnutrition, as 60% of the entire Iraqi population had to live off of food rations. When these sanctions came into place, the Iraqi government had to change some of its policies. They were one of the only countries in the Middle East to invest into women's education, that all changed when these sanctions took placed. The government had to change its focus to militarisation and other economic needs, that women lost their education.

Another result of just this one sanctions led to malnutrition, lack of medical supplies and clean water.

What would be need to help clean these water supplies? - Chlorine, oh wait, that was banned from manufacture, due to it being apart of a chemical weapon.

Congrats United States, I hoped you achieved your purpose here. Because those hundreds of thousands of people who played no role in this, were killed, because of your hatred for their government's policies.

Why war is better then economic sanctions.

If one has a problem with another country, these countries should go to war.

A war may kill thousands of people, but it does not take away from the economy of the country. The people being killed are being killed to represent their country, rather then one being starved to death, or not having clean water to drink from.

War does not prevent people from living their every day lives. People can still live freely, and have all the things they need to live a healthy life, while a sanction provides just the opposite. While the meaning of a sanction is not meant to harm, the numbers do not lie, as you can tell from my earlier statement, more people die from a sanction then in war.

An economic sanction may or may not accomplish its end, but it does not justify the means of killing thousands of defenseless people.

Rebuttal #1

Originally Posted by Number$
An increase in taxes, being the most obvious sanction, is going to affect everyone but like everything, the ends absolutely justifies the means because so long as the future of public services such as national health, social services and public transport are secure for the long term.

A sanction is not raising taxes, so therefore this argument is ridiculous, as a sanction is mentioned in the beginning of my post.

Rebuttal #2

I’ve been on the end of tough calls. Having been made redundant twice I can now look back and understand that at the time the decision needed to be made. It may not be a popular idea at the time and maybe the companies involved regret it but it had to be made to secure the short term future. On a daily basis, companies are living on the edge because the difficulty that this decision poses and the risk on offer.

Thats great, but what about the others you are affecting. I know in this economy, you need to worry about oneself, and your country, but when you are killing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, a line needs to be drawn.

Rebuttal #3

Popular, schmopular. It may be ugly but people are paid to get results and politics is no popularity contest. It’s a results industry.

And the results are simple, sanctions do not give us the best results, it just kills more people, people undeserving to be punished for doing no harm, warfare solves battles, not penalizing the people of the country of the neccessities they need to live.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people by preventing them keys to life, can not be justified in any way.

 

[a0161613]

Fantastic comeback Baller.

Nonetheless, I think I misunderstood the economic sanctions term required for the arguement. So we talking about the UN sanctions etc....that’s fine. I will come back shortly.

 

[a0161613]

It could be argued that economic sanctions are a way to ensure the rich get rich, the poor get poorer, which is unfortunate that most of the sanctions in place today and through history affect poorer countries in this way.

Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan and Syria are all currently subject to various such sanctions.

That is a massively short sighted point of view.

While the government or establishment that applies these sanctions will do so with great thought, there is absolutely no doubt that they were applied with justifiable reason for the most part. Iran (and previously Iraq) are subject to massively stringent rules by the U.N. due to terrorism. And on the basis of preventing another 9/11 or London bombings then it would not take a lot to see why countries support such action.

Burma (Myanmar) is one of many countries that are subject to many sanctions due to their simple lack of democracy and (mainly) a frankly awful human rights record. And surely, if countries are being run so poorly that they are actively denying their population a basic humane existence, then surely the government or the establishment in power who are benefitting from the suffering populace deserve to be punished.

Baller has argued that sanctions kill hundreds and thousands and that war is a more sensible solution. This is quite frankly ridiculous. There is no way the UN would happily stand back and see 1,000,000 children under 5 years perish due to their restrictions. The sanctions do not kill them, it is not the death knell for them. And at worst, it’s the fact that they are already having to live in conditions worse than poverty that the rations just won't help.

The UN in most cases will always look to avoid forcing military action and sanctions are one of those steps.

The issue with countries who are subject to sanctions is with the people in power in these countries. The general populace are forced to live in horrible conditions before the UN step in. The UN have to interfere. They can only ever do so much. They will never get any help from the government/dictatorships etc. These people and children were going to suffer regardless of sanctions applied by the UN.

Baller argued that war is better than economic sanctions and this is where I found his otherwise brilliantly constructed arguement falls to pieces.

A war may kill thousands of people, but it does not take away from the economy of the country. The people being killed are being killed to represent their country, rather then one being starved to death, or not having clean water to drink from.

Economy is the first thing that suffers in wartime. Businesses tend to grind to a halt and trade is massively reduced. For the aggressor, the cost of going to war is massive. I don’t need to quote figures for the most recent Iraq war simply because everyone knows how massively expensive and ineffective the war has been. We are talking billions and it affects more people through increased taxes and loss of life on both sides than sanctions.

War does not prevent people from living their everyday lives. People can still live freely, and have all the things they need to live a healthy life, while a sanction provides just the opposite. While the meaning of a sanction is not meant to harm, the numbers do not lie, as you can tell from my earlier statement, more people die from a sanction then in war.

While sanctions are restrictions on the way of life and do impose potential problems for millions. War is a constant threat to that way of life for many more. Hundreds of civilians and soldiers on both sides get killed by war, even if like the US did in the second war in Iraq, and just go after strategic targets. War is an inaccurate business.

An economic sanction may or may not accomplish its end, but it does not justify the means of killing thousands of defenseless people.

Killing is never justifiable. War is only occasionally justifiable but never solely for economic reasons.

War is massively expensive and compared to sanctions, there is no comparison. Sanctions are a relatively easy solution and will always be implemented before war is declared. War should always be the absolutely last step.

Human rights will always be a good reason to enforce economic sanctions and at the forefront when sanctions are discussed. In a dictator-led country like Iran or North Korea, where war would likely be risky, massively expensive and unsuccessful, sanctions enable a sense of control and security while allowing diplomacy to have the smallest of chances.

Iraq is barely in a better state than twenty years ago because of the war and subsequent regime change. While the WMD argument was flawed (to say the least) war was the final option because of the continued threat that Hussein was posing to his countrymen and potentially the rest of the world. Sanctions had to be the first step in that process.

It has effectively been argued that war is the first and only alternative, whereas sanctions on the trade and economy allow for diplomacy to have a chance. Sanctions can be lifted and relations can be improved whereas war is something that potentially will have massive implications for the infrastructure of a nation.

I can totally respect Baller’s assertion that Iraq lost a generation of children but to assert that sanctions were the sole reason behind this is baffling. If Iraq had been led properly and not by a despot like Hussein who murdered millions of his own countrymen and sacfriced a generation of Kurdish men and women, then the populace would have coped a lot better from the economic pressures and restrictions.

While I agree that allowing people to die by not handing the basic functions in life is unjustifiable, people in these countries were dying anyway as it is very unlikely they had access to these basic services to begin with. Sanctions were barely the nail in the coffin.

Warfare solves battles, not human rights issues. Soldiers and guns will not help economical problems of any sort. The argument that

If one has a problem with another country, these countries should go to war.

has almost been made null and void as they are separate issues.

Forgive this; it's all over the show.

 

[Baller]

An excellent comeback by Number$, but here we go:

Rebuttal #1

While the government or establishment that applies these sanctions will do so with great thought, there is absolutely no doubt that they were applied with justifiable reason for the most part. Iran (and previously Iraq) are subject to massively stringent rules by the U.N. due to terrorism. And on the basis of preventing another 9/11 or London bombings then it would not take a lot to see why countries support such action.

These sanctions may be placed for a good cause, but how do the ends justify the means? The Iraqi people had nothing to do with this, and you are punishing them, not the terrorist group of Al Qaeda, but the already poor people, and you are depriving them of life. How can that be justified in any way?

Rebuttal #2

Burma (Myanmar) is one of many countries that are subject to many sanctions due to their simple lack of democracy and (mainly) a frankly awful human rights record. And surely, if countries are being run so poorly that they are actively denying their population a basic humane existence, then surely the government or the establishment in power who are benefitting from the suffering populace deserve to be punished.

But you see, what are sanctions going to do for this country? They have been placed for 2 years now, and have shown no results at all.

The United States, The U.K., Canada, and France have all asked for more sanctions, however China has the right idea, even coming out stating "sanctions or pressure will not help or solve the issue". The Chinese government has the right idea, they are still currently trading with Burma at this time, and in fact due to this China has given 964 million dollars worth of goods to Burma to help them out.

These sanctions do not help any cause, as if just 4 countries or a small amount of countries enable a sanction there are still hundreds of other countries to help out that particular country, which is case and point with China and Burma.

Rebuttal #3

Baller has argued that sanctions kill hundreds and thousands and that war is a more sensible solution. This is quite frankly ridiculous. There is no way the UN would happily stand back and see 1,000,000 children under 5 years perish due to their restrictions. The sanctions do not kill them, it is not the death knell for them. And at worst, it’s the fact that they are already having to live in conditions worse than poverty that the rations just won't help.

The UN in most cases will always look to avoid forcing military action and sanctions are one of those steps.

The issue with countries who are subject to sanctions is with the people in power in these countries. The general populace are forced to live in horrible conditions before the UN step in. The UN have to interfere. They can only ever do so much. They will never get any help from the government/dictatorships etc. These people and children were going to suffer regardless of sanctions applied by the UN.

Now I have pieced these paragraphs together, as they both give the same message, and are both completely ridiculous.

First off, how can you say these people are going to have a bad life whether they had a sanction or not. Yes times were bad, but that is just your opinion, could I plese see some numbers proving that statement.

These people after the sanctions can lose clean water, they can love medicine suppies, even when times were bad, they still had those important things. They couldn't fix any manufacturing problems because guess what, those supplies were being sanctioned by another country.

Yes times were bad before a sanction, and I agree sanctions are not a sole reason for these deaths, but the deprivation of basic needs is a main concern, and it doesn't justify the cause of these deaths, that is the real topic of debate here.

Response to all of his overall rebuttals

Now I am not going to just quote every thing you said in rebuttal to me, as that would be endless, so I will just summarize.

These sanctions, are mainly due to a government's decision not the people, and what do you do when you have a problem with a governmen'ts act or beliefs you go to war. You try to battle with THE GOVERNMENT'S military. The militry is fighting for not only their country but mainly for THE GOVERNMENT, thats how you solve problems, you prove it in battle. But when a sanction is palced you are affecting THE PEOPLE.

Sanctions do not always accomplish its goal, it doesn't always prove its point, The U.N. does not always place the sanctions but individual countries can, case and point I made above about Burma. And they can sometimes get away with it when their allies help them out anyway, so if you want to end it, go to war.

In summation, the sanctions need to stop, as the result of accomplishing their goal, rarely even occurs, but also in the act of killing thousands of people CAN NEVER be justified.

 

[a0161613]

**Baller & I have decided to post our concluding arguments. This was fun and made me realise that I kind of need to put some thought and effort into my future encounters. Best of luck Baller**

This was a tough argument to make and no doubt, the benefit of the Internet means that we have a wider scope to see worldwide events. I couldn’t deny that there were unnecessary deaths in Iraq in the nineties but to say this is all due to UN sanctions is short-sighted.

The sanctions were applied to Iraq as a consequence of the Kuwait invasion. Given the horrific natures of Iraq’s actions to Kuwait and previously, its’ Kurdish population, sanctions were the obvious and simplest option. Like the sanctions against Pakistan and India for developments in nuclear testing, sanctions function as a punishment without force while allowing for diplomacy.

It is unfortunate but economic sanctions are bound to have an effect on the population. Like all third world countries, a ban on import is going to affect the population adversely. It’s inevitable especially in undeveloped countries torn apart by civil war and dictatorships where the population suffer abuse from power-hungry and in charge.

However it is just as likely is the fact that propaganda will emerge to criticise the nations or group who are enforcing the sanctions. This has already happened with Burundi who were punished as a result of a devastating civil war and poor relationship with its neighbours. Such criticism is inevitable and Baller has picked up on it on his argument, by proposing that violence of any sort is a suitable alternative.

I explained that Burma maintains trade with China despite the US, the UK, Canada and France (and most likely the vast majority of the world would follow suit) all uphold their ban on trade with a country who has a shocking human rights record. Given a somewhat chequered history themselves, it is not surprised that China have chosen to disagree with the majority of the world on this matter. There is a simple reason for China continuing to trade with Burma and it is to ensure their good relations and dominance over the region and especially the countries that they share a border with. For a country of their size and with the resources that they have, China will not miss $964 million worth of goods.

Had the US or any of the other nations who sponsors their sanctions against Iran, gone to war instead of applying sanctions, it would likely have been a devastating massacre and only worsened the violent nature of relations between the countries in that region.

Even now, in the last couple of days, Iran’s President has said they do not fear further sanctions. Even if this is political propaganda, it does show that economic sanctions do not have to ruin a country.

When the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq (particularly Resolution 661), it did so with stringent rules, banning trade & financial resources except medicine and (in emergencies ”humanitarian circumstances&#8221 foodstuffs.

For people to die in such numbers while the sanctions were in effect is of course massively unfortunate. However to tar all such restrictions with the same brush is ineffectual and I firmly believe that the sanctions would have the same effect in any underdeveloped third world country that was dictated and destroyed by a tyrant like Hussein.

Nowadays, it is obvious humanitarian concern from the past now means that the UN need to be more considerate and targeted. The assertion that sanctions kill is old fashioned as the UN have implemented measures to prevent this. It would have been easy to punish Iraq, Iran, Pakistan etc after September 11th but instead, targeting Al-Qaeda means more specific and yet wide ranging. This is to ensure what happened in Iraq in the 80’s and 90’s could never happen again.

Baller has asserted that sanctions = population death. In my mind his emotive argument has partly bought into the humanitarian propaganda that emerges from countries under this duress.

It could be argued that sanctions now protect as many as suffered in previous years. The UN has placed massive value on protecting life to ensure that the past humanitarian crisis are never repeated. It may not popular but governing the world in the way they do is always going to be tough.

In short, the means of enforcing economic sanctions may never please every government under the jurisdiction of the UN however these have been put in place and for the most part, they are effective. Military action is avoided and while arms trading, travel and finances are all restricted, it is now much more likely that the general population will not suffer and medicinal resources and foodstuffs are deliberately not targeted.

This is ensures that sanctions target the specific actors whose behaviour illicit trigger concerns while also enforcing and protecting humanitarian efforts. So like the civil wars that have ravaged African countries due the trade of conflict diamonds, the UN can apply specific sanctions to target those who further this trade and therefore finance the devastating conflicts.

The UN have vastly improved how they decide to enforce sanctions and nowadays more than ever, because of the improvements made to their efforts, the ends truly do justify the means.

 

[Baller]

This has been a great debate Number$ and we all know what we have to improve on in the future. Best of luck on the results.

________________

Now in my previous arguments, I said that war was a better solution then economic sanctions, and for my closing arguments, I plan to give examples on how these economic sanctions have killed thousands and then ultimately led to war which killed even more people, but in no way, shape, or form, I am backing off my previous argument.

In 1938, President Roosevelt placed economic sanctions on Japan, after the Pana incident. Shipping goods were halted, and banks were discouraged from extending credits to Japan. And then in 1940, these sanctions got worse, banning the export of arms, munitions, aviation fuel, and by 1941, Roosevelt freezed all Japanese exports in The United States, which means Japan just lost 80% of all of its oil.

Now what they lost has killed thousands, but they still had other countries to help them out, so it was not that bad of a situation for Japan despite losing 80% of its oil. But the 1941 freezing was the final straw for Japan, when they finally unleashed Pearl Harbor. I don't need to go over the numbers of Pearl Harbor as everybody knows the fatalities of that terrible day.

Now sanctions were not the only cause for the assault on Pearl Harbor, but historians agree that this was the final straw. So now, not only are sanctions hurting the country that is being sanctioned but now this is an example of also hurting the country giving the sanction.

Throughout this debate, I feel all of these examples truly prove the ends DO NOT justify the means.

_____

Great job Number$, and good luck with the results.

 

[gd]

In the beginning the debate was kind of all over the place, but I think you guys got it focused by the end. It was really close, but ion the end I think Numbers was able to argue that sanctions are a better alternative to war more effectively than Baller was able to argue for ar, which is alwasy a tircky thing to do. Great work by both of you though, this Pool has been fantastic.

Scores:

Numbers 37
Baller 35