Replies

I don't like Saddam Hussein and am not going to defend his misdeeds. But he has been disproportionately villified over the years. That first Iraq war should have been avoided. Iraq did have some legitimate complaints against Kuwait, most glaringly its slant drilling under the border, and Saddam thought we had given him a green light to invade. For that part of the world, he was a progressive and would have been content to continue to do business with the US. Gas prices would certainly be lower.

But I don't believe in collective punishment. To employ sanctions hurts an entire population and does breed hatred against us. In the final analysis, the sanctions didn't do any good since ended up fighting another war to get rid of Saddam.

I oppose sanctions in principle. Economic growth is the most effective form of social change because it is peaceful and empowers all members of society, giving them financial power and access to knowledge.

"disproportionately villified over the years" . . . .wow. . .really? I think he has not been held accountable enough for the evil he has done to his people and to the region.

"Saddam thought we had given him a green light to invade. "

Blame American First, not a good thing to do. Look, if he was looking for our permission, we did not give it. Some State Dept bimbo left the wrong impression, but that does not in any way excuse his aim, goal and actions. And besides, do you really think that Saddam would have been convinced not to invade if we said, "Don't do it."

I think not, and here is why: After the invasion and brutalization of the Kuwaiti people, we had the most massive build-up of troop for an invasion since WWII. We threatened him, told him in no uncertain terms that the game was up; leave or be thrown out. He didn't believe us.

So, we are to believe he would not have invaded if he knew we would object--with no forces in the region to back up the objection, while after the invasion we had a massive build-up and he thought we didn't have the will?

I can't see it.

Sanctions were a good thing for the US. Why? because in Operation Iraqi Freedom the Iraqi military was not the same military he had in 90/91. This ensured a quicker victory with less US casualties. Sanctions worked in that regard, and sad that innocents suffered under sanctions, I place the blame on Saddam, and if sanctions saved American lives, so be it.

Realistically, absent having to send in troops, sanctions hardly force changes because the very regimes that warrant sanctions are the very regimes that are least affected by them. Oh, and the french usually find ways to get around them.