Nadine, why would it matter if Saddam didn't have sanctions against him and the no-fly zones were canceled and he was back as King Kong of Iraq, just like the bosses of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba and so on?
Saddam had a history of
1) Aggression towards other countries, attacking Iran and conquering Kuwait
2) Very bad calculations of risk (the Iran thing, for example)
3) The capacity and desire to conquer and control most of the oil of the Persian Gulf.
4) Steady assumption of Islamic rhetoric and working partnerships with terrorist groups. Call it Hizbollah envy.
The aggression and risk-taking combined with one man rule made Saddam particularly chancy to leave alone, as opposed to say, the House of Saud. Those guys aren't much nicer than Saddam but they're a lot more cautious. Having it all stuck in the middle of the Persian Gulf - that was the unique combo about Saddam.
Saddam didn't have a choice in the sanctions. He was getting them good and hard whether he liked it or not, no matter what he did. He knew that.
That is simply wrong. Saddam was working hard to get them lifted, paying millions in bribes to France and Russia and China - and it was working, slowly but surely. |
