Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Thank you for the acceptance of this debate. *My opponent seems to think that if merely threaten to use the sanctions, then that would be enough to make the target nation change their offensive policies? My question here is what will we do if the threat fails? I guess, war, which is not at all good. **Towards the end of his attacks he states that war is not the best alternative, implying that there are other alternatives. For that, he states a positive trade deal. I guess I do not understand why we would want to trade with the target nation. That would defeat the reason we want to enforce e.s. in the first place, to show them that their policies are offensive. Besides this, what could we offer that would want, to convince them to change their policies? ***Also, he is yet to attack the fact that these sanctions act as second chance for the target nation. ****To refute his 2nd and third contention attacks, he seems to forget that target sanctions work differently than regular sanctions. According to "Targeted sanctions: Motivating Policy change, by Kaempfer and Lowenberg, in the Harvard International Review, "Targeted sanctions can impact a countries ability implement the objectionable policy. Technological and military goods are frequently necessary for targets to pursue those objectionable policies. These targeted sanctions restrict the ability of the target nation to get these goods. This worked in India and Pakistan to delay those countries production of nuclear weapons for decades." As the above shows, if sanctions work at all in any way, why should we not be able to use them? We should. To ban them all because one doesn't work, would be like banning all cars because one breaks down, SENSELESS!!! He uses the counter-logic that "While it is true that if a sanction fails just once, that is not reason to scrap the entire process (with your computer analogy), but so true is the opposite, if works once but fails countless times, it is not worth keeping. Such as if you have a car that starts only once every several weeks, even though it does sometimes start. So the question is do the benefits from economic sanctions justify its use, or do the consequences it causes strike it from the table?". To this I say obviously some of the parts are useful, so why not save the car for parts to another? *****As I have shown, if one works then there is no reason to ban them all, even if they work once in a great blue moon. That blue moon might be the time they work and the time we really need them. ******"Economic sanctions may have seemed to have been a useful tool in the past. However a closer look into them shows that they are quite impotent. Drezner (2003) looked into US sanctions from 1975 - 1994 and found that when threatened with sanctions (but without the sanctions actually being imposed), the THREAT had a 56.34% success rate, as opposed to the only 33% success rate of actual sanction use [1]." This only cements my argument that if they work at all, then we should be able to use them. ~Given my opponent has presented no case to give us reasons to affirm, and that I have proved why we should negate, me must negate resolution. Thanks again to my opponent and good luck in voting! VOTE NEGATIVE(CON)!!!