[ZaDomSpremni]

You people seem to have a problem telling the difference between a hostile government and that goverment's civilian poulation. This article is not supporting Saddam, it's supporting the civilian population of Iraq.

The sanctions are hurting Iraqi civilians much more then their hurting Saddam. The civilians did not gas the Kurds, they did not invade Kuwait, they do not have any choice in what Iraq does, so why should they suffer?

Obviously Saddam does not care about his civilians, so it is up to the US to do something to help them. Anyone who disagrees with me is worse then Saddam.

[sarasmom]

"Obviously Saddam does not care about his civilians, so it is up to the US to do something to help them.

It is not obvious to me why the USA has any obligation to "help" the populations of foreign countries who advocate the destruction of the USA.

[M Kehoe]

The sanctions are hurting Iraqi civilians much more then their hurting Saddam.

True, one exception, Sadaam's WMD programs.

The civilians did not gas the Kurds, they did not invade Kuwait,...

Just where do you think the military population is drawn from?

... they do not have any choice in what Iraq does,...

Au contrare, they have the choice of overthrowing the tyrannt.

... so why should they suffer?

See the previous point.

5.56mm

[Eva]

The article says the sanctions are hurting the people, but it does not describe how they are hurting them, because if the article explained this, it would be clear that Saddam could act to help them if he wanted to. Saddam would rather send his money to the Palestinian families of murderous terrorists.There is no shortage of cash for terror.

If the people are in such a terrible plight, why don't they oust Saddam?