Targeted Sanctions Quotes

Boycotts are not something to be taken lightly.

Economic sanctions rarely achieve the desired results.

Opponents of U.S. sanctions have made 'unilateral sanctions' their special target. They argue that sanctions observed by many nations would be much more effective. True enough. Far better for trade with an outlaw regime to be restricted by many nations than by just one.

I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign.

America's bipartisan strategy for years has been to deny jihadists with sanctuaries anywhere in the world from where they can plan, prepare, and train for attacks against the West.

Unilateral sanctions simply don’t work. They penalize our own people.

The fight against terror cannot stop as long as terrorism itself is not stopped, but the path of war must change: it must lead directly to terrorists and not be waged on the backs of three million Palestinians.

A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change.

Today further EU targeted sanctions on Syria come into force. The message is clear and unambiguous: those responsible for the repression will be singled out and held accountable.

Sanctions are not really an economic weapon.

Sanctions historically are quite counterproductive in the sense that if you impose sanctions on your enemy, it tends to strengthen your enemy.

It is said that sanctions do not work—that they lead to resentment and possibly war. When sanctions do not work the reason is that they are not strong enough.

Imposing economic sanctions is declaring economic warfare on the people of South Africa.

I regard this type of boycott as ill-concieved, ill-considered, and futile…. I regard it as unjust and cruel to confound the innocent with the guilty.

A boycott is, inherently, a blunt instrument. It is an imperfect weapon, a carpet bomb, when all involved would prefer a surgical strike.

The serious crimes by the Sudanese government and the government-supported militias must be met with serious consequences. We must work for tough international economic sanctions on the Sudanese government.

Fighting terrorism is not unlike fighting a deadly cancer. It can't be treated just where it's visible - every diseased cell in the body must be destroyed.

A campaign against terrorism requires checks on ”over stretch” and a viable exit strategy.

I am against boycotts in general: boycotts against us as well as anything and everything that can be boycotted.

People talk about smart sanctions and crippling sanctions. I've never seen smart sanctions, and crippling sanctions cripple everyone, including innocent civilians, and make the government more popular.

We need a clear plan to put radical Islamic terrorism out of vogue, and it should be eliminated at its roots. American SOF are part of the puzzle, but they do not, by themselves, complete the picture.

I don't believe that you should punish the people of Iraq because you don't like their leader. Saddam Hussein is not being punished. He's fat, and he is eating enough food and living in palaces. But his people are punished by denying them food and medicine.

Terrorist groups and their extremist state sponsors cannot be fought with kid gloves and flowery words of persuasion. As the U.S. has displayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq, only a vigilant and determined campaign of confrontation can deter and obstruct them.

Leveraging the global finance system against Iran and other rogue nations that sponsor terrorism is a position I'm happy to take.

But it is important to observe that when Europe or the United Nations impose sanctions that are supposed to be aimed against a certain regime, usually generally millions of people end up being directly punished.