Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (397)	4/18/2003 11:57:43 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Thomas, I intentionally included that one passage. It was but one POV from one report that still supports my POV more than yours. Since Saddam took power, the disparity between his supporters & the vast majority of Iraqi's began to deteriorate. That is widely reported, widely documented & widely accepted as true. The argument that the sanctions are the fault of the US is akin to saying you are at fault for the incarceration of the criminal who robbed you & beat you nearly to death because you pressed charges against the criminal. Saddam failed to meet the requirements of the cease fire agreement. It was Saddam's choice to fail to comply with international law. And it was the UN passed those sanctions, not the US. BTW, the Oil for Food program should have fed & provided medicine for all of Iraq's needy. Instead it went to build more palaces. It fed & bought weapons for Iraqi Republican Guard. It enriched senior Iraq leaders & Ba'ath leaders as well as Saddam. I guess that also was the fault of the Bush Administration? I notice that you completely ignored every other report & the hundreds of others easily available to you that clearly prove my point to be accurate & yours to be bunk.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (397)	4/19/2003 10:48:04 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 20773

Hi Thomas, You know, I agreed with you when you said that Saddam had done a lot of good things with the enormous wealth Iraq enjoyed in the 70s. He did build up an impressive infrastructure, he took on illiteracy, developed the healthcare system, but I would disagree with your inferences from this article that the current poverty of Iraq is due to the sanctions. During the war, Saddam took great pains to camouflage the true impact of the war on everyday life. He employed a "guns and butter" policy, keeping commodities flowing and allowing contracts and building to continue. Even the effect of the truly appalling number of deaths was somewhat diluted by the payments he made to the families who lost loved ones. When the war was over, however, the country was absolutely devastated economically. The reconstruction debt was estimated at 230 billion, the foreign debt was huge, and inflation was soaring. In order to fund all this, Saddam began to look to Kuwait. He lost the gamble, but what he gained was a new scapegoat for the economic woes of his country-- the Evil Empire. It was not sanctions that did him in. He had already placed his country in a terrible position economically. I believe sanctions did not work and were not an effective tool with Iraq, but I don't believe the sanctions were the cause of the current condition. If this is not entirely coherent, it's because I am typing during timeouts from the Stars-Edmonton game AND the Mavericks- Portland game. Go Dallas!