United States sanctions over kill ruins gaming for more people

Iranian, Syrian, and Sudanese online gamers are hit by the new American sanctions.

Battlenet finally was forced to close their games due to restrictions imposted by the United States.

There are workarounds via Italy and Turkey to the European servers but there are also rumours

that the Iranian government is blocking online games.

It is not only Battlenet - Guildwars at least is also verified closed and probably many other popular games.

I hope our politicians are proud - keeping the people in a handfulof countries not only from playing their favourite games but also preventing their subscription fees from being reimbursed is quite an accomplishment - I HOPE THEY ARE PROUD aren't you?

I sure can't think of any good from any of this - so help me out here.

can anyone name any good that has come from the sanctions?

can anyone name any good that has come from the sanctions?

iowastate

Off the top of my head, the end of aparthied.

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

can anyone name any good that has come from the sanctions?

CarnageHeart

Off the top of my head, the end of aparthied.

you may disagree with the government of one or more of those countries but this action does not impact any of the governments it only has an effect on a small portion of the people - gamers to be exact.

and none of the nations in question have ever practiced any form of apartheid.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

can anyone name any good that has come from the sanctions?

iowastate

Off the top of my head, the end of aparthied.

you may disagree with the government of one or more of those countries but this action does not impact any of the governments it only has an effect on a small portion of the people - gamers to be exact.

and none of the nations in question have ever practiced any form of apartheid.

*Sigh* You asked what good sanctions have done, I gave you an answer. Don't play dumb because you didn't like it.

Iran has openly waged a campaign of terrorism against the US. As a result, all economic contact with them has been forbidden (so as not to feed the beast). Of course, on the scale of retaliation, sanctions are the least damaging/effective step the US could have taken.

Would you support a stronger method such as military retaliation? That would actually kill people, but it would allow gamers to play Warcraft. Which is more important to you?

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Off the top of my head, the end of aparthied.

CarnageHeart

you may disagree with the government of one or more of those countries but this action does not impact any of the governments it only has an effect on a small portion of the people - gamers to be exact.

and none of the nations in question have ever practiced any form of apartheid.

*Sigh* You asked what good sanctions have done, I gave you an answer. Don't play dumb because you didn't like it.

Iran has openly waged a campaign of terrorism against the US. As a result, all economic contact with them has been forbidden (so as not to feed the beast). Of course, on the scale of retaliation, sanctions are the least damaging/effective step the US could have taken.

Would you support a stronger method such as military retaliation? That would actually kill people, but it would allow gamers to play Warcraft. Which is more important to you?

Errrrrr......what???

I think the people in those countries hae bigger things to worry about than battle.net access TC.

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Off the top of my head, the end of aparthied.

CarnageHeart

you may disagree with the government of one or more of those countries but this action does not impact any of the governments it only has an effect on a small portion of the people - gamers to be exact.

and none of the nations in question have ever practiced any form of apartheid.

*Sigh* You asked what good sanctions have done, I gave you an answer. Don't play dumb because you didn't like it.

Iran has openly waged a campaign of terrorism against the US. As a result, all economic contact with them has been forbidden (so as not to feed the beast). Of course, on the scale of retaliation, sanctions are the least damaging/effective step the US could have taken.

Would you support a stronger method such as military retaliation? That would actually kill people, but it would allow gamers to play Warcraft. Which is more important to you?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="iowastate"] the end of apartheid - how does that apply to stopping access to online gaming in Iran, Syria and the Sudan?

you may disagree with the government of one or more of those countries but this action does not impact any of the governments it only has an effect on a small portion of the people - gamers to be exact.

and none of the nations in question have ever practiced any form of apartheid.

DeX2010

*Sigh* You asked what good sanctions have done, I gave you an answer. Don't play dumb because you didn't like it.

Iran has openly waged a campaign of terrorism against the US. As a result, all economic contact with them has been forbidden (so as not to feed the beast). Of course, on the scale of retaliation, sanctions are the least damaging/effective step the US could have taken.

Would you support a stronger method such as military retaliation? That would actually kill people, but it would allow gamers to play Warcraft. Which is more important to you?

There is more than one terrorist organization in the world. Al Queda (which isn't controlled by any State and thus tends to do the most damage because it has no one to reign it in) is by far our deadliest foe, but Hezbollah (one of Iran's terrorist catspaws, though far from the only one) has sometimes been given permission by its master to shed American blood (including but not limited to Lebanon in 1983 and Saudi Arabia in 1996).

People die because of the lack of, effects of, or alternates to sanctions. So gaming really shouldn't be a concern here.