Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

I will attack, rebuild. C1: He says there is a distinct difference between a business man and a nation. But the situation of a business man wanting more money and a country wanting more power is very analogous. He says that a nation has an obligation to protect itself. I agree with that. But protecting one's own citizens does not mean implementing sanctions, because sanctions are ineffective. (see Gordon 5% of time evidence). So sanctions are an ineffective way of trying to protect one's own citizens. Also, most of the time when countries impose sanctions, it is not for the purpose of protecting one country's own citizens, like the South Africa case. Recall that his first argument was that states should "maximize their relative power", and that "no option ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives." His claim means that sanctions aren't really a purpose for protecting a country's citizens, but rather a tool to maximize power. C2: Sanctions do not help hegemony. Hegemony is defined (merriam-websters) as preponderant influence or authority over others. This is basically another claim saying that sanctions should be used to excercise authority over other countries and expand power. He states that if the target nation changed their opnion of the sender nation, it is all that he needs to win the second point. Refer to my Iraq evidence that citizens are hurt by sanctions. So changed opinion of the sender nation by the target nation, and expanded power justifies killing citizens in the target country? A major point of the debate is that foreign policy objectives (such as expanded power, authority, etc.) shouldn't be valued over morality. My opponent apparently agrees with this point since he drops it. My case Criterion: He states that a country should try to protect itself once again. But cross apply the argument that sanctions usually aren't used to protect a country. Also, if we look back a history, when the US placed a sanction on Cuba, the only thing that happened was that Russia strenghtened the bond between it and Cuba and sent all the needed supplies to Cuba (including nuclear weapons). This strenghtens the point that sanctions are ineffective and also refutes the point that sanctions aren't effective at resolving conflicts. C1: Cross apply the argument that Sanctions do not prevent less harm. (Refer to Iraq evidence in Round 1), they actually inflict more harm. Thomas G. Weiss writes in Sanctions as a foreign policy tool: Long term damage from sanctions can be more deadly than warfare. Yet Short term suffering and long term structural damage can be as harmful as war. The negative impact on nutrition, health, and other social services as well as on basic infrastructure have been most thouroughly documented in Iraq, where sanctions have caused more deaths than Operation Desert Storm. Sanctions INTEND on preventing human rights crisis. Since they are not effective (Gordon 5% evidence), they don't effectively prevent human rights crisis. C2: Remember the drop on morality is valued over foreign policy objectives. The claim that sanctions prevent genocide and other ideological conflicts is false because they are very ineffective (Gordon 5% evidence). It is because I refuse to let citizens die in the name of expanding power that I affirm the resolution, and urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you Protagoras for this debate! :) Voters: Could you post your reason for decision in the comments? Thanks! :)