Who is this Darren guy anyway? I never see him comment in the group.
Anyway, I just wanted to think this whole notion of sanctions as an act of war thing through a second round, and Darren I think needs to be in on this.
Towards the end of the episode, Darren and Jason got worked up into a frenzy over how bad sanctions are. I have to agree; sanctions are bad… but are they an act of war? An act of aggression? If sanctions were an act of war, then a military invasion or air strikes, which are also an act of war, would be reasonable responses. I don’t think either of them would say that us putting sanctions on Iran, Cuba, the Soviet Union, or North Korea over the years gives those countries justification to bomb Pearl Harbor or the air base at Pensacola.
If any more of an argument is needed, let’s suppose that Darren upset Jason somehow, so Jason put “sanctions” on Darren and refused to trade with him… If this were an act of war on the international level, then the same act would be an act of aggression at the personal level. Yet, when we frame it like this, it seems ridiculous!
Now, if we put a blockade on N. Korea preventing trade, that would actually be an act of war. Blockades have been recognized internationally as an act of war for over 150 years.
Once again, I’m in full agreement that sanctions are almost always a bad thing. They cause regular relations to break down and they set the stage for open hostilities. But, in and of themselves, they are not an act of war.
Great show again today… and a heck of a job.