The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
It is good to see this being aired in the US. Here is the UK we hear nothing about the sanctions. It seems to be accepted that Iraq is a poor decrepit 3rd world country. 'Neglect' under Saddam is also mentioned. On 31 Jul 2003 at 7:33, ppg wrote: > A Postwar Inquiry on the Iraqi Sanctions, > > July 29 2003 > Memo To: Democratic Presidential Contenders > From: Jude Wanniski > Re: Were Sanctions Right? > > As the situation in Iraq qets stickier, candidates, more of you are > joining Howard Dean in questioning the reasons for the pre-emptive war > and its consequences. If there are serious congressional hearings > ahead, the probing will get down to issue of why the Iraqi people > suffered through a dozen years of sanctions if Saddam Hussein had no > weapons of mass destruction during all those years. In last Sunday's > New York Times Magazine, the question is raised, "Were Sanctions > Right?" by author David Rieff: If there is one thing every citizen of > Iraq today agrees upon, it is that the sanctions were wrong: "The Iraq > I traveled to in May was full of dissonant voices and contradictory > opinions. People were no longer afraid to speak their minds. And yet > what I found was an almost universal opposition to sanctions -- a > stern, unshakable conviction that the 1990's were a human and economic > catastrophe for the Iraqi people and that sanctions were at the heart > of the disaster." > > Even Rieff does not get down to the nub of the matter, which would be > so hard for the American people to accept: That the decision was made > by the U.S. foreign policy establishment in 1991 that the sanctions > could not and would not be lifted until Saddam Hussein was deposed. > That is, no matter how much he cooperated with the UN inspectors, the > standards for compliance had to be continually raised in order to keep > the pressure on the Iraqi people -- hoping their suffering would cause > them to overthrow Saddam. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > now admits it was "stupid" for her to say that it was "worth" the > lives of the 500,000 Iraqi children who died because of the sanctions > (according to the United Nations) to "contain" Saddam. Now it turns > out Saddam was almost certainly "contained" as early as 1991. What > were the UN inspectors doing all that time? They were not really > looking for WMD, but trying to verify that they had been destroyed. > > This fact helps understand why the American military was not welcomed > as "liberators" and why it is most unlikely the 23 million Iraqis will > not continue to spawn young who we will call "terrorists," those > plotting to kill one American at a time, seeking revenge for > Washington's willingness to kill Iraqis by the thousands, week after > week, for 13 years. They are glad Saddam is gone if only because the > sanctions have been lifted, but it is most unlikely they will forget > their own holocaust. Now that the NYT has had its limited postwar > inquiry, there really should be an official one. Mark Parkinson Bodmin Cornwall _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk