US sanctions against Iraq were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children. Madeline Albright, the US secretary of state at the time, showed no regret and insisted they were justified. The effect was devastating because treatable ailments went untreated through lack of basic medicine that were available almost everywhere else. It wasn’t a mistake, it was quite deliberate. Medicines are supposedly exempt from restrictions but governments make it so difficult that it becomes impossible to supply them if a country is being severely sanctioned.
Similar sanctions have been imposed on Syria. For decades the US has sanctioned Syria because of the support it gives to Hezbollah, even though they are primarily a defensive organisation, the US claims they are terrorists. The murder of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri is also blamed on Hezbollah, with no evidence to support it and no motive.
The US aren’t alone in issuing sanctions, the EU did exactly the same. Russia is also being extensively sanctioned but the effects on European countries is far greater than that felt by the US. 30,000 German businesses have close connections to Russian industry, but the effects are damaging to all European countries. Obama has used the EU to try and weaken Russia.
You won’t hear about the damage to industry and exports this side of the Atlantic from our own media. Anything that undermines US policy is completely ignored by them. The US wants the EU to do it’s dirty work but some EU countries are starting to realise that long term sanctions against Russia will do more damage to ‘us’ than them. Germany is by far the greatest loser, their trade with Russia is larger than the US. When you combine the rest of Europe’s trade with the Russians, the loss of trade to the EU is huge.
Could it be possible that the US don’t realise how much damage they are doing to the Europeans with the extensive sanctions against Russia? Of course they do and so will our politicians, they just keep quiet about them. So if the US will damage trade for it’s supposed allies, the damage it will impose on it’s enemies needs no describing.
The Western countries are the major manufacturers in electricity, gas and water production facilities. When these utilities are attacked, the result is obviously devastating. The stricken country will try to purchase replacement parts but won’t be allowed to. With sanctions in place, the infrastructure will not be repaired, the people get very angry and revolt. That’s the plan.
This explains recent attacks on Palmyra gas fields, a processing facility at Hayan and the catastrophic pollution of water and subsequent deprivation in Damascus. What is surprising is that these vital sites have not been attacked before.
If an an invasion or ‘created opposition’ is successful, the result is also an economic bonanza for many US corporations. Post-war Iraq, a long list of companies made billions, even when they didn’t complete the work, which was more often than not. So, US bombs destroy facilities, then US charges you to fix it all up again, if you are lucky. It should also be noted that the same punishment is inflicted on Gaza. Time after time their vital utilities are destroyed for no other reason than to deprive the people of basic needs. This is the most vile tactic, initiated to collectively punish everyone. This is against international law.
A really determined company could apply for an export license for Syria, however it could be a long and expensive process. If it was in the UK, the government would make it as difficult as possible to avoid upsetting the US. If I wanted to send charity donations to Syria, I would be breaking the sanctions put in place by the EU. Not only do they prohibit any help from well meaning companies, they also stop individuals from donating.
Sanctions are a hidden killer but the MSM only ever mention that certain people have been sanctioned and their US bank accounts frozen. The implications of this weapon are far and wide. They are being used more effectively by governments to stop any assistance being given to a distressed nation unless they decide who the money goes to. We could give to the big charities because most of the money they get pays the chief executive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. We can give to a charity like ‘hand in hand for Syria’, a very dubious charity run by anti-Assad activists and allowed to keep it’s charity status despite credible complaints concerning it’s political nature. In other words, you can donate to the Syrian disaster – but only through ‘us’.