Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"
1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.
|
It wasn't perfect, but what is? It was working.
And spare me your crocodile tears for the UN's legitimacy.
Quote:
|
2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.
|
True. Perhaps the sanctions were not well tailored to their ends.
I have seen arguments that sanctions usually don't work, and are more about making ourselves feel good than anything else. They tend to undermine those in the country whom we want to support, and to strengthen those we don't like. Cuba is another example.
Quote:
|
3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???
|
What?
