To Newsweek’s credit, it published Anthony J. Constantini’s piece in order to share a contrarian view with their readers, which was a journalistic service that everyone will benefit from after finally being exposed to a different opinion about this issue.
Sanctions aren't at all "fascist": in fact, the opposite.
Countries have always imposed tarriffs but sanctioning trade first appeared after WW1 when the League of Nations sanctioned Mussolini over his African adventure which drove him into the Pact of Steel with HItler toward whom he he'd been rather cool.
Mussolini was Liberal Euiorpe's "good citizen" at the time, Italy an Entante power and major enforcer of the Peace Treaties especially aginst German resurgnce.
It'd have been easy to detach Mussolini from Hitler.
NYC Jews imposed a sanction when Hitler came to power never mind HItler's attempts to downplay the NSDAP's anti-Semitic stance, realizing like many that unity was more important to a ruler than to an aspirant.
Sanction usually backfire because they target civilians in a quasi-military seige or blockade operation which demonstrates cowardice and weakness.
Why not fight the opposing army, if it's war one wants?
Why drag commerce into it?
Any wonder, that global corporations have become are more powerful than most armies?
Home industry also benefits from sanctions, as had the American petro industry's intended bid to capture European markets at Russia's expense.
Sanctions are just early "color revolution" and convince us more than anything else not only that our own gov't can't protect us but that it'd rather make war on its own citiznes' than a foreign army.
The upshot of this practice is that we are never at war but never at peace either in an enternal garrison state.
Sanctions aren't at all "fascist": in fact, the opposite.
Countries have always imposed tarriffs but sanctioning trade first appeared after WW1 when the League of Nations sanctioned Mussolini over his African adventure which drove him into the Pact of Steel with HItler toward whom he he'd been rather cool.
Mussolini was Liberal Euiorpe's "good citizen" at the time, Italy an Entante power and major enforcer of the Peace Treaties especially aginst German resurgnce.
It'd have been easy to detach Mussolini from Hitler.
NYC Jews imposed a sanction when Hitler came to power never mind HItler's attempts to downplay the NSDAP's anti-Semitic stance, realizing like many that unity was more important to a ruler than to an aspirant.
Sanction usually backfire because they target civilians in a quasi-military seige or blockade operation which demonstrates cowardice and weakness.
Why not fight the opposing army, if it's war one wants?
Why drag commerce into it?
Any wonder, that global corporations have become are more powerful than most armies?
Home industry also benefits from sanctions, as had the American petro industry's intended bid to capture European markets at Russia's expense.
Sanctions are just early "color revolution" and convince us more than anything else not only that our own gov't can't protect us but that it'd rather make war on its own citiznes' than a foreign army.
The upshot of this practice is that we are never at war but never at peace either in an enternal garrison state.