Syria may Impose Sanctions on U.S.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Syrian legislators have begun debating a bill that would bar trade dealings with the United States, in response to the U.S. sanctions imposed on it last month.

The bill holds the signatures of 127 of the 250 person Syrian parliament.


"Due to the actions of the United States that do not respect people and disregard their future ... this law has been introduced"
Draft bill

Al Jazeera- Syria debates imposing sanctions on US (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EB2151B0-834D-47CB-BD69-DD1396B88F1A.htm)

[refuse_resist]

It was coming, especially since the U.S. was the one who put sanctions on them first.

[life beyond life]

as they say, what goes around comes around. that's a bittersweet moment for good ole' Uncle Sam if you ask me. very ironic.

[h&s]

Ha! Give Uncle Sam a taste of his own medicine!

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 28 2004, 09:40 AM
Ha! Give Uncle Sam a taste of his own medicine!
Heh, you people do realize these "sanctions" imposed by Syria are going to do virtually nothing to the U.S., right? To be completely honest, when I first heard this story I thought it was hilarious.

[life beyond life]

i doubt thats the point Lu. i think that Syria proposed sanctions are just a political statement, especially in the midst of threatened war in the region. didn't Uncle Sam say Syria was on the list of countries they would invade? correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm quite sure i heard this threat.

i think its funny, no matter if it makes a tremendous difference. kind of like the Afrikan countries that refuse the US imports of non organic beef and certain genetically mutated produce. they refused these imports because of the health risk involved with consumption of these foods. i thought that was a praiseworthy statement also; similar to a small scale divestment campaign.

[Guerrilla22]

This only really hurts Syria. What exactly does the US need from Syria again? At any rate, I thought Ghaffi was going to sell out, guess not.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:16 PM
Heh, you people do realize these "sanctions" imposed by Syria are going to do virtually nothing to the U.S., right? To be completely honest, when I first heard this story I thought it was hilarious.
I know, but it makes a point.

[Kurai Tsuki]

If one country's decreased or halted buying of American products had no effect then the United States would not be an interventionist country, and the WTO and IMF and such groups would not exist. The buying of American products is one of the main sources of income and power for the United States.

[Hate Is Art]

ha! This is great, what next Ethopia stops exporting its grain crop to the USA?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:26 PM
If one country's decreased or halted buying of American products had no effect then the United States would not be an interventionist country, and the WTO and IMF and such groups would not exist. The buying of American products is one of the main sources of income and power for the United States.
That isn't why the U.S. is an interventionist country. The U.S. doesn't sell its products, it exploits the products of others, and then it "trades" with them by moving products across the border to its own corporations(it does that in Mexico repeatedly). The U.S. system it imposes on the Third World is one of export, export crops, export oil, export everything, and people starve. The countries who fight back by ceasing the purchase of products from the U.S. are only hurting their own population, as long as the U.S. has control of their products. Ending all exports would on a forced-export relying economy would just shut down everything. Syria doesn't even apply in this analogy though, Syria and the U.S. haven't exactly had good trade relations in years, so it really won't matter much for the U.S. either way, it might hurt Syria slightly.

[el bigpig]

good for Syria, but will it really do a damn thing to the US?