0 - https://www.pwsafe.org/relatedprojects.shtml

A US sanction is neither a local (to all of SWIFT) or international law. The question still stands.

McCarthyism was the pinnacle of the anti-communism movement. How did that turn out, again?

> It was an open objective and part of what caused World War 2

I'm pretty sure Germany invading other countries was the cause of World War 2. I don't see how you can lump "dang commies were spreading, so we had to go fight 'em" in as a justification, when there was only a non-aggression pact between Germany and the former-USSR. "Those dang commies were spreading without shooting a single bullet, so we had to stop 'em! Yeehaw!"

> Nukes aren't as deadly as other weapons we were already using.

How do you figure? If they weren't/aren't as deadly, why did the US waste the billions to research and produce them? The technology of the time had no qualitative equal. Rockets weren't even in use, yet, because the V2 only came out during WWII. So, no ICBMs. At best, there was the rail gun that Germany was developing but that was a "their" weapon and not an "our" weapon.

> The US formed NATO with the European countries.

Where are you getting this revision of history from? The Western Union was created, first, by European countries and it became NATO a few years later. The US didn't form anything, it came to an already existing table.

> I don't know why you're so caught up on nukes.

Ok, Agent Orange? People are still dying from cancer, to this day, from that.

> Usually whenever we help some country, especially a country we don't particularly like, it'll be conditioned on something.

You're so close to getting it... "it'll be conditioned on something" is the pivotal point: As long you get what you want(ed), consequences be damned. Iran-Contra comes to mind, here.

> The USD being almost ubiquitous helps to stabilize it against many kinds of major shocks that no other country can absorb.

Isn't actually the inverse? It's preventing all of it's former close allies from just dumping the bonds because Dorito wants to antagonise all of your allies? Didn't the 2008 crash demonstrate it can destabilise in a major shock, just as well?

> If you can prove anything I've said is incorrect, I'll change my mind

Everything in your statements seems to be bathed in American Exceptionalism and I'm doubting that anyone could change your mind.

Given that SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium and Italy's major bank is one of the 24 banks on the SWIFT board, how does this "blockade" in SWIFT happen? Is the inference that all of the banks bow down to the US, even though the US only represents 2 out of the 24 banks on the board?

Given that fascism had quite the bloodied history in Italy (see: Mussolini), and we're talking about a group literally based in Italy, why wouldn't you? Is it because you were unaware of said history in Italy and never experienced fascism first-hand, yourself?

SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium. Only 2 banks out of the total 24 on the board of directors is US banks. Unless there's a hostile takeover of the SWIFT organisation by the US, I think this is a bit of a stretch. (Plot-twist: Italy is on the board of directors.)