Sanctions Weren't Working

By -
I saw Tony Blair on TV today saying that the invasion of Iraq was necessary because "sanctions weren't working."

I agree. Saddam had only been reduced to having zero weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, the only sign of the sanctions working would have been if he had had a large negative number of WMDs.

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:08 AM

    Hey its me Sean from OTA.

    Just a thought here. The sanctions worked to the extent that Sadaam's ability to act out using chemical weapons, scud missiles, etc was limited. But the cost to maintaining those sanctions indefinitely was high. The people of Iraq were suffering, according to the news media, from the sanctions. Sadaams friends were getting richer. In a sense, the sanctions regime was like a force helping him to consolidate and retain power, since all of the wealth of the nation was now concentrated in his hands, for him to distribute as he pleased. Arab resentment of the west increased, as stories of starving children filled the headlines. Our pilots and naval forces were essentially locked in place, and the cost of keeping the troops there was huge. And, since Sadaam didnt actually change, he always reserved the right to get right back on track with his programs as soon as we lost the will to maintain the sanctions.

    So , Blair is to some extent right. The sanctions regime kept sadaam temporarily at bay, at huge cost (in dollars and politically), but didnt solve the problem for the long term.
    The sanctions, in order to be effective, would have to be maintained in perpetuity. And that would not have been a good thing, I dont believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:27 PM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:58 PM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:37 PM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more