In These Times

Latest Comments view all 12

• • 08 Mar 06
  • 9:39 pm

  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 …

  Posted to Were Sanctions Worth the Price?

• • 08 Mar 06
  • 9:41 pm

  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?

• • 10 Mar 06
  • 7:37 pm

  "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?

• • 10 Mar 06
  • 7:56 pm

  "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?

• • 10 Mar 06
  • 8:17 pm

  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?