*yawn*

The notion that Egypt’s corruption is ‘finally exposed’ is just silly. This is an ‘everybody knows’ thing.

Boru

(December 12, 2020 at 6:43 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The notion that Egypt’s corruption is ‘finally exposed’ is just silly. This is an ‘everybody knows’ thing.

Boru

But countries like France still deal with them and invite its president to have an alliance with.
And also people like Donald Trump still calls their butcher-president "my favorite dictator".

Just like Giulio is killed, these Arab dictators will kill more and more westerners.

Why do sanctions against these terrorists are never raised?

(December 12, 2020 at 6:52 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(December 12, 2020 at 6:43 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The notion that Egypt’s corruption is ‘finally exposed’ is just silly. This is an ‘everybody knows’ thing.

Boru

But countries like France still deal with them and invite its president to have an alliance with.
And also people like Donald Trump still calls their butcher-president "my favorite dictator".

Just like Giulio is killed, these Arab dictators will kill more and more westerners.

Why do sanctions against these terrorists are never raised?

And Italy still dealt with them even after Giulio's murder. I agree that this is shameful behaviour.

Sanctions 1) aren't often imposed, 2) rarely work when they ARE imposed, and 3) aren't likely to be imposed on profitable business partners.

Boru

(December 12, 2020 at 7:05 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 12, 2020 at 6:52 am)WinterHold Wrote: But countries like France still deal with them and invite its president to have an alliance with.
And also people like Donald Trump still calls their butcher-president "my favorite dictator".

Just like Giulio is killed, these Arab dictators will kill more and more westerners.

Why do sanctions against these terrorists are never raised?

And Italy still dealt with them even after Giulio's murder. I agree that this is shameful behaviour.

Sanctions 1) aren't often imposed, 2) rarely work when they ARE imposed, and 3) aren't likely to be imposed on profitable business partners.

Boru

The Italian ambassador can depart Egypt, so as the European union's diplomats.
And sanctions might not work with giants like China and Russia; but they work very well  against bunkers like Egypt.

(December 12, 2020 at 7:18 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(December 12, 2020 at 7:05 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And Italy still dealt with them even after Giulio's murder. I agree that this is shameful behaviour.

Sanctions 1) aren't often imposed, 2) rarely work when they ARE imposed, and 3) aren't likely to be imposed on profitable business partners.

Boru

The Italian ambassador can depart Egypt, so as the European union's diplomats.
And sanctions might not work with giants like China and Russia; but they work very well  against bunkers like Egypt.

Only if you get enough people to go along with you on the sanctions.  Let's say the US were to sanction Egypt for...well...being Egypt (as good a reason as any). This means Egypt loses trade money, but it also opens up another market (China, for example) to take up the slack.

But as long as Egypt remains a profitable market for the EU, you can forget about anything meaningful in the way of diplomatic or economic reprisals.

Boru

(December 12, 2020 at 6:52 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(December 12, 2020 at 6:43 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The notion that Egypt’s corruption is ‘finally exposed’ is just silly. This is an ‘everybody knows’ thing.

Boru

But countries like France still deal with them

There is no "but"
France knows very well with whom it is dealing.period. Doing stuff you know you shouldnt do is not the same as not knowing wtf you are doing. sheesh.

This is no more breaking news to anyone than "Hey, i just figured 2+2=4".
You are constantly harassing people with your "please stay on topic" BS, but are unable to make the most simple of arguments yourself.

Nations have to exist in reality, Winter..and in reality, nation a is not in control of what nation b does, but still has to maintain those relationships which are of interest to the state.

Sanctions, at least as we've tended to use them and as how most of us conceive of them, were probably never a particularly good idea. The people and not the bad actors pay for those sanctions (and this might be why rulers like sanctions so much...just food for thought). Direct action against the bad actors themselves is a more lucid strategy..but this, ofc, is "regime change".....so...you know, pretty sure you're not on board with anything that might ever help anyone.

I do think that I have a way to help you understand this by exploiting your own peculiarities. Imagine someone applying sanctions or regime change to the US. Not the fantasy of it, the nuts and bolts of the reality. See the difficulty?

(December 12, 2020 at 7:23 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 12, 2020 at 7:18 am)WinterHold Wrote: The Italian ambassador can depart Egypt, so as the European union's diplomats.
And sanctions might not work with giants like China and Russia; but they work very well  against bunkers like Egypt.

Only if you get enough people to go along with you on the sanctions.  Let's say the US were to sanction Egypt for...well...being Egypt (as good a reason as any). This means Egypt loses trade money, but it also opens up another market (China, for example) to take up the slack.

But as long as Egypt remains a profitable market for the EU, you can forget about anything meaningful in the way of diplomatic or economic reprisals.

Boru

Egypt's economy is based on tourism, if the western countries departed from the relations with it Egypt's economy will suffer greatly.

What about the American support for the Egyptian army? that can stop too; along with any European support for the army.

China and  Russia are the west's scapegoat to flirt with dictators and third world warlords. Egypt\s army get free support and weapons from the west; its whole military arsenal is western, they can't switch to Russian and Chinese tools overnight. The sanctions will cripple their regime.

---

(December 12, 2020 at 7:36 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Nations have to exist in reality, Winter..and in reality, nation a is not in control of what nation b does, but still has to maintain those relationships which are of interest to the state.  

Sanctions, at least as we've tended to use them and as how most of us conceive of them, were probably never a particularly good idea.  The people and not the bad actors pay for those sanctions (and this might be why rulers like sanctions so much...just food for thought).  Direct action against the bad actors themselves is a more lucid strategy..but this, ofc, is "regime change".....so...you know, pretty sure you're not on board with anything that might ever help anyone.

I do think that I have a way to help you understand this by exploiting your own peculiarities.  Imagine someone applying sanctions or regime change to the US.  Not the fantasy of it, the nuts and bolts of the reality.  See the difficulty?

I will answer to your argument with an example: Iran.
Look what American sanctions did to Iran; it shrank its role hugely and ended and left them isolated and crippled.

Egypt will fall if sanctions are imposed, all I understand is that the west has no morals; actually if their interest is inside an animal\s anus they will fist the animal without any problems. They don't care about civilian deaths in Egypt (and it started to reach their own citizens there now). Do you think that kind of political agenda is worthy of respect?