Who saffers the most by sanctions against Zimbabwe?

Question

no.3

Answer 1

It depends entirely on the nature of the sanctions. Obviously blanket restricions are bad for everyone in the country including the people one most wants to help.

The best type of sanctions would be those that affect most the people in power, and could include targeted international travel, banking, and credit restricions, and a complete embargo on the import to Zimbabwe of luxury goods.

Answer 2

The innocent Zimbabweans who else!

Mugabe will not suffer he has "contacts" with China and kak.

Answer 3

The Saffers saffer. Lol!

Seriously though, of course the poor working people suffer the most.

Answer 4

Private business suffers, Mugabe will not be effected by any sanctions because he has many external bank accounts and SA just down the strip, he can buy anything that he wants.

When Britain and the rest of the world put sanctions on Rhodesia, while we were fighting a bush war against communist trained and indoctrinated terrorists, it brought the country to a standstill, no petrol, no oil, no machine parts for engines, no outside markets for our produce, they destroyed Rhodesia so that they could put Mugabe into power and now that Zimbabwe has gone titts-up they want to impose selective sanctions, their racist hypocrisy makes me sick, DESTROY THE WHITE MAN BUT DON'T HARM ANY OF THE FUZZY-WUZZIES.

Answer 5

Learn to spell, plaasjaapie !!!

Answer 6

Well certainly not Mugabe.

Like someone said innocent Zimbabweans.

Answer 7

The MDC members.

Answer 8

I'd say the Saffers do.

Answer 9

Two questions one answer I am afraid.

Well its usually the people with the least that suffer the most and I don't expect it is going to be any different this time.

Answer 10

Doshieal is spot on - I agree! Impose sanctions on the political bosses only!

Answer 11

It is always the people who has to face the consequences of sanctions