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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (163376)	6/1/2005 12:58:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well you are kind of mistaken. I never supported the sanctions in the form they were. In fact on many occasions I pointed out that if Iraq is properly closed off it will progress fine on its own and pointed to democratic changes in Kurdistan as an example This makes no sense. Kurdistan was not "closed off" in any sense. It was patrolled by the American (&other) Air Force that bombed Saddam's troops and Baghdad on several occasions to keep them from trying a repeat of the Anfal campaign. The US would have much preferred internal Iraq progress, the universal conclusion was that it was never going to happen under Saddam; he was too ruthless. As for not approving sanctions in the form they were in, what a dodge. The form they were in was a form susceptible to manipulation by Saddam Hussein, and it's clear that any attempt to prevent manipulation was doomed, esp. with a corrupt UN as the watchdog. Saddam's interest was in starving the Iraqis and using them for propaganda to end the sanctions. Period, end of story. So what conceivable form of sanctions could have avoided that, without a regime change? Politics is the art of the possible. You don't get to point at an impossible scenario and declare, that is the one I wanted. That said, the sanctions were killing people more slowly than the current invasion and we did not have half the problems we are facing now in Iraq. Killing more slowly is hardly a virtue if it is your permanent situation, with no hope of betterment. Hitler killed more slowly during the 30s than the 40s; does that mean the 30s were an improvement? Only if you don't mind the growth and expansion of the Third Reich. War is always a solution that is worse in the short term. The course of war avoidance at all costs lead to a triumphant Saddam, to be followed by Uday or Qusay. If America's immediate problems were less in this scenario; the long-term problems were greater. Not to mention the problems of the Iraqis.