I do not agree with the statement that sanctions are an act of war. As Sanctions serve an important role of warning nations of trouble. For example, If one nation is violating human rights, or committing war crimes, sanction's are a good way of warning the opposing nation, rather than just leaping into action. Overall, I view sanctions as a good way of warning opposing nations of your stance, or showing power, without any violence.

True, sanctions can prevent medicine, and vital imports from entering an opposing nation. But that still isn't entirely a war, as it isn't jumping straight into attack, and is more than not serving as a warning. This statement also leaves out the important nuance of Smart sanction's, which target specific individuals inside a nation, such as a politic, a business, or even a specific material, which overall prevents sanctions directed at one group (such as a government for example), rather than harming entire populations.

The gulf war sanctions are a horrible example of sanctions, as they are cited by historians, human rights organizations, and policymaker's, as a massive failure. As they were used as an attempt to convince Iraq to exit Kuwait, but were executed extremely poorly, and affected the entire population, requiring military assistance anyway. My opponents claim presents faulty generalization, and a strawman fallacy, as it presented a bad example is the standard for sanctions (which the gulf war is not at all a good example of sanctions), and presented it as a form of my argument.

I disagree with my opponents claim as it relies to strongly on a majority of sanctions being cut from human need's such as water, food, or entire economies', but this is rarely ever the case (anymore at least), as the most sanctioned resource today is crude oil, while cutting off trade with entire nation's is rarely ever used today. (cutting off trade with an entire nation is one of the closest ways sanctions can harm civilian living) And my opponent also does not explain how sanctions on only a leader spill over to civilians. An analogy for this could be; If there are 5 group's of 5, with there being 1 leader in each, we can allow them to freely trade amongst each other, with the leader controlling a majority of trade. if then the leader makes a choice every other group disagrees with, then they might cut trade with the leader, while then resorting to trading the others in the group instead. as unless the leader is a strict dictator, I don't see how cutting their economic power, would cut it from their people. I find it incredibly hard to argue with my opponents "gut feeling", as i feel they need to understand, something can feel like war, with no real war happening, for example the arms race during the cold war, it truly did feel like a war, as 2 countries were inching from bombing each other, but not much bombing actually took place.

Ordinary people are squeezed every day, as life in general is not easy, with current rising cost of living. with that implication, then we would constantly be at war. As being in poverty can be described as being squeezed, as those in poverty are in constant stress and struggles, of making it to the next day, but that doesn't mean they are at war. In the US rates are at 10.2%, but does that mean 10.2% precent of the people are at war?