Saddam's 12-year cat and mouse games with the weapons inspectors and his bilking of the UN Oil for Food program had nothing to do with this? Why don't you provide some factual basis for this grim projection?
I don't care what Saddam Hussein's regime did... don't make innocent kids pay for that. Oil for food was enacted in 1995. We began imposing the sanctions that caused that humanitarian crisis in 1990. Also, there have been between 12,976 and 15,033 civilian casualties, and: "We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." http://iraqbodycount.net
This "we" was the UN, not the US. They were imposed because Saddam was universally believed to be serious threat to Middle East peace and stability, a reputation he certainly earned. Why does he bear no responsibility for prolonging the sanctions by his continued defiance? First, these have been accidental, unlike Saddam's deliberate mass murder. Second, while regrettable, this unintentional death toll is dwarfed by both Saddam's atrocities and the results of the sanctions. By this measure, ousting Saddam seems like a far lesser evil than any other available options.
I know it was the UN, but "we" were a part of it and strongly supported it. If "we" had wanted Saddam to let the Red Cross provide humanitarian assistance with no stipulations, and Saddam still wouldn't let that happen, I'd agree with you. How in the world would allowing food and medicine into Iraq threaten the peace and stability of the middle east? I guess he could break down the chemicals in Ibuprofen and Penicillen, mix it with fresh water and a loaf of bread to create some chemical weapons? Regardless of whether or not he bears responsibility, witholding food and medicine shouldn't figure into that equation. That's totally dependent upon whether you think we should be there in the first place. Obviously, I don't think we should.
I never heard that the sanctions prevented humanitarian assistance. Can you provide some documentation of this? If you opposed both the war and the sanctions, what other ways would you propose to deal with Saddam? I don't think that ignoring him is a credible alternative.
http://www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/2-7-00.html http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm (chapter 2) It's the comprehensive sanctions that I have a problem with. We could still have let food and medicine into the country, and perhaps something could have been done about their water supply as well. Honestly, Saddam probably didn't cry over what happened to his people, and all it does is make us look like hypocrites.
Actually, the entire premise of this thread - that the people of the US do not want the US to be subject to international laws and standards, or to be subject to the rules of the UN - is not even true. Apparently it is gabino and other bush followers who have a "tin ear" to what the american people ACTUALLY want. (check the link for the entire article - even more damning for bushies) http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20030/ ...George Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy views are broadly rejected by both the average American and by public leaders, according to a major new survey released Tuesday by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR). The survey, titled "Global Views 2004: American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,' found that 76 percent of the general public reject the notion that Washington should play the role of world policeman and 80 percent believe that the U.S. is currently playing that role "more than it should be." The results reflect the views of nearly 1,200 randomly selected members of the public and of 450 "leaders with foreign policy power, specialization, and expertise," including U.S. lawmakers and their senior staff, religious, business and labor leaders, senior administration officials, heads of major foreign policy organizations and lobby groups, and university professors and journalists who make foreign policy their main focus. The survey, which was conducted in July, shows that all Americans - be it the layperson or a policy leader – much prefer multilateral solutions to foreign-policy problems to the more unilateral approach that has dominated the Bush administration. Asked what is the more important lesson from the 9/11 attacks, 73 percent of the public said, "The U.S. needs to work more closely with other countries to fight terrorism," as opposed to 23 percent who said it "needs to act on its own more..." Among the leaders, who were surveyed separately, the margin in favor of multilateralism was even larger: 84 percent, as opposed to the mere nine percent who called for more unilateral action. Support among both groups for strengthening the United Nations is particularly high, especially when compared to the results of the 2002 CCFR survey. More than two-thirds of respondents in both groups said the UN should have a standing peacekeeping force, while some four in five in both groups favored U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Strong majorities among both groups also rejected Bush's notion of pre-emptive war, which is codified in his 2002 National Security Strategy and is often cited by the president as a justification for the war after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Only 17 percent of the public and ten percent of leaders interviewed in the survey said that war was justifiable if the "other country is acquiring (WMDs) that could be used against them at some point in the future." Some 53 percent of the public and 61 percent of the surveyed leaders said war could only be justified if there was "strong evidence" that the country is in "imminent danger" of attack, while 25 percent of both groups said the U.S. should go to war only if the other country attacks first. CCFR has conducted the 'Global Views' survey every four years since 1976, making it a standard reference for experts on public and "elite" attitudes on Washington's role in the world. It decided to conduct one this year, just two years after its last one, because of the importance of foreign policy in the current election campaign. ...nearly 90 percent of the public and 85 percent of the leaders said they favor a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; 80 percent of both groups said the U.S. should agree to the global ban on anti-personnel land mines; and more than 70 percent of both groups said they support U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming. A strong majority also said that international terrorists should be tried before the ICC if their own countries refuse to put them on trial. ...Asked to predict what percentage of the public supported the ICC, for example, only 20 percent of the leaders predicted the correct answer – a "strong majority." Seventy percent of the elite respondents (including 68 percent of senior administration officials and 91 percent of Republicans on Capitol Hill) thought ICC would receive support from less than a simple majority.
How did these sanctions compare with those imposed on South Africa and credited with helping to bring down Apartheid?
Food imports weren't cut going to South America, and neither had South America just gotten out of a war. I don't know how poor the people of South America were at the time of the sanctions, I don't know if they were being ruled by a megalomaniac dictator, and I don't know exactly how long they were used (1988 was when congress approved sanctions, so it couldn't have been too long), but all those things would be quite important. Here's a good article analyzing sanction's http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/analysis.htm
