1/2 This was a pretty good article but I have a problem with the way the central issue was framed, as if there was ever much of a difficult 'moral choice' about the sanctions. The obvious reality is that the sanctions were reprehensible, immoral and completely unnecessary, and were never intended to contain Hussein. The sanctions acheived exactly what they were designed to achieve: the destruction of Iraqi civil society and the maintenance of Hussein as an iron-fisted ruler/guarantor of regional "stability" (i.e., the prevention of the very situation the moronic Bush has since brought about over there). It is helpful …
All 12 comments by...
Graeme
-
-
2/2 Case in point, the sanctions: the 350,000, half million, million or whatever the figure is (as if it makes much difference) died in order to help make Hussein stronger and Iraq weaker. WMD never, ever had anything to do with it. The UN verified that the vast majority of his weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s; furthermore, every other country in the region also had WMD, so that can't be the reason. Of course he would have re-started his program once the inspections ended; every one of his neighbours had highly advanced WMD programs, why shouldn't he? Don't tell …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
"The sanctions killed 500,000 (innocent) Iraqi children. Madeline Albright thought this was “worth it.” I’ll leave it to souless Republicans to agree with her while quoting Jesus and cheering on the next genocide." Exactly, though even this oft-cited statistic sometimes annoys me. 500,000 was the figure estimated by the UN for children under 5 killed by the sanctions from 1990-1995. It doesn't include children over 5 or adults in that same period, nor does it include deaths in all age groups from 1996-2003. While the mortality rates undoubtedly dropped during the Oil-for-Food era, it's not like they ever approached the rates …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
"The goal here is to basically, make other people be nice to their own people and keep them from getting WMD’s and blowing up themselves and the rest of the world, without going to war...sanctions didn’t work for two reasons. The sanctions were targeting the wrong people or things and, after the misery the sactions imposed FINALLY made it up the ladder to where they were working, they weren’t honored in good faith... I must say I rather disagree with your analysis BlueButterfly. The *stated* goal of the sanctions may have been to disarm Saddam Hussein but we know that can't …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
This is why I disagree so strenuously with this statement: "sanctions seem the only viable means of deterring regimes that seek nuclear weapons or engage in gross human rights violations." The reality is that sanctions are usually just another weapon of the powerful against the powerless. They may be "nicer" than thermobaric bombs or white phosphorous but are no less deadly. They weren't "viable" in Iraq because as noted above they didn't succeed in disarming Hussein (or succeeded very quickly and then were left in place anyway, as disarming him clearly was never their real goal); "deterring" is a rather misleading …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
"If the sanctions worked so quickly, why were they still going on eight years after they began? Is it because we changed our goals from disarming Hussein to dethroning him?" They were still going on because disarming him wasn't their goal. The goal was to rely on an "iron-fisted ruler" (Tom Friedman's words) in Iraq who could keep the potential tinderbox of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds from igniting. This later changed to outright removal, yes, but only as the Neocons started to influence policy more and US imperial ambitions expanded. "Why didn’t anyone tell us? This writer says: “Hussein was so …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
I should probably clarify my position. The sanctions may have "worked" in a limited sense (i.e., they compelled Hussein to dismantle his own weapons before the inspectors could find them) but they weren't "viable" in that they didn't achieve their stated ends, i.e. punishing Hussein for hiding weapons it was clear he didn't actually have. WMD was a smokescreen, in other words. Debating the "theoretical" efficacy of sanctions is thus a rather academic argument vis a vis what actually happened in this case. Sanctions could perhaps be a scalpel of diplomatic precision but in practice they tend to be a bludgeon …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
As for policy alternatives, see what I wrote above: "there is a whole UNIVERSE of potential non-violent, non-destructive approaches an immensely powerful state like the US could have pursued in “dealing” with Hussein [assuming this is even deemed necessary (which I am)]. The first that comes to mind is simply adopting policies unlikely to make [people like Saddam Hussein] stronger (i.e., no sanctions). The second is stop supporting him (no weapons, diplomatic cover, etc.). Third is the aforementioned region-wide disarmament [already proposed by the UN by the way and supported by at least some of the Arab states], under which all …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
"So what again is the answer? Are you leading into the suggestion that we disarm ourselves?" Disarming ourselves would be a fantastic idea, but I'm not even going that far. Simply adhering to the laws already on the books would at least be a start. For example, UNSC Resolution 687 called for Iraqi disarmament *in the context of region-wide disarmament,* the only context in which disarming one country really makes any sense. UNGA Resolution 60/52 specifically calls for a nuclear weapon-free Middle East. Honouring the AMT, CTBT, NPT, Bioweapons protocols, etc. would be another really good idea. Bush has decided to …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
"it is us who need to control our despots within our own country. if we can’t do that who the fuck are we to control despots round the world." The point is to influence our leaders to call off the attack dogs they already control and to stop propping up such horrific governments to begin with. The average American or Canadian could't go much about KOPASSUS units in Timor or the SAVAK in Iran but their governments could have, simply by threatening to turn off the funding. Clinton proved this when he finally decided the bloodshed in East Timor was too …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
Thanks for your comments. Other species would probably benefit from greater human responsibility, yes - although I suppose the argument could be made that long-term their lot would be greatly improved by the disappearance of humans altogether. As for where you sign up - there are many places to start. One is a student, youth and non-violence network I happen to be a founding member of myself. I don't want to get your hopes up: to tell you the truth it's mostly just a forum for friends to talk to each other (though so is al-Qaeda, in a way); we certainly …
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
-
So do I :) Thanks again and best of luck in your learning efforts.
Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?
- Joined March 8, 2006
- Last Visit March 12, 2006
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed