I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death.

That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.

You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie.

"The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.

> Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy.

No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo.

> "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.

Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.

We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.

Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war.

Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.

You keep repeating that (probably because you've heard it repeated a lot), but it isn't true. Sanctions at most times and in most places have been pretexts for future wars. Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. Sanctions certainly have not caused Russia to give back the Crimea to Ukraine. It's like any disputed territory inhabited by mostly-sane people. The residents who wanted Russian rule are happy, many of those who didn't have moved back to Ukraine, and it's not as though any of the civic institutions really work differently anyway.

I am not "against any sort of killing". If I have a good enough reason to kill I will do it. I have killed lots of animals while hunting and dealing with livestock. I am not "benevolent". However, I am also not evil. It is for that reason that I don't want my tax dollars used to kill innocent children in foreign lands. The killing done by Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam, and the Taliban is on their own heads. (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) In my parents' lifetimes, we have never improved a situation overseas by invading. By that measure I suppose sanctions are a little better, because it's arguable that e.g. South Africa was improved by sanctions...

> Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that.

The Russians have a ton more guns and tanks.

Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine because of repercussions, and sanctions are part of that.

If we were back in 1940, the Russians would have taken over Ukraine long ago.

> (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.)

Conspiracy theory.

It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. They themselves didn't feel the same about Crimea, because of course historically it only became a part of Ukraine in 1954, a "gift" of USSR. Russia is today surrounded by nations it theoretically (well, it might depend on the current oil price: yay fracking!) could defeat militarily. Are sanctions protecting all of those? If we assume that's possible, how could we ramp up sanctions from their already absurd levels if Russia started threatening e.g. Azerbaijan or Mongolia? Please, let's live in the real world: USA sanctions against Russia are not sustaining Ukrainian independence. As is always the case, the Ukrainians themselves are doing that.

Conspiracy theory.

AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order. AQI developed into ISIS after we further disrupted both Iraq and Syria, in those regions of both nations where no one (including armies of USA, Iraq, Syria, Russia...) dared venture. For many years, most of their arms and ammunition came from American-supplied caches "stolen" from the apocryphal "good rebels" that we were repeatedly told actually existed and would kick out Assad real soon now. This is basic recent international history. How is it that you haven't kept up with this?

> It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion.

Read some history of the cold war. USSR was happy to invade and subdue its weak neighbors in the past, in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, all the way up to the 70s. It won't do the same today because of international retaliation, part of which are sanctions.

Russia had no right to invade Crimea. They just did because they had the military might to do so. If your argument is that they should be allowed to do so without consequences, then I strongly disagree. Your position makes you feel morally superior, but in reality it will pave the way to WWIII with Russia increasingly emboldened to extend militarily until an inevitable clash.

> AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order.

By that logic, UK and France are responsible for the Nazi regime and all the evils it has done because they defeated Germany in WWI and created the conditions for the rise of the Nazi party.

There's a fashionable trend to blame the US as "directly responsible" for everything bad that goes on the world, by applying preposterous liability standards that nobody has ever applied to any other nation in history.

You assume a great deal about my moral feelings. I am practical, and I perceive our real enemies. There is no moral component to that. Like Iran, Russia's time as a major world player is limited. It has burned through all its human resources, and now its oil is worth less and less every day. They're not going to take over Europe, and if they were it's not as if USA could stop that with either sanctions or force of arms. The drunken walk of sanctions and other threats we've employed have not served the interests of USA citizens any more than they've served the interests of Russian citizens. They have served someone's interests.

USA get the tiny amount of international criticism we receive because we keep doing the same awful misguided things while claiming that we expect different results. We aren't all crazy, so at least some of us are liars. Indeed those are the same liars who came up with the ridiculous "world police" canard of preposterous liability in the first place. Who kills whom in other hemispheres really doesn't affect us enough that we should waste our wealth and soldiers' lives pretending to do something about it.

> Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine

Yes, like it or not, they do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_interventio...

>>That's a natural result of any sanctions.

Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.

Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.

At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.

During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.