iraq guns vs butter straw man

the thing is, iraq couldnt spend money on butter even if they wanted to. thats what tight sanctions are all about. below is an opinion piece, but has links to source material.


http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html


heres the first 2 paragraphs


BEGINQUOTE


The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.


"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."


ENDQUOTE


brad

That only deals with one specific aspect of sanctions; you can't say from this alone that Saddam couldn't spend money on butter because there are other forms of butter. But let's look at this water purification issue a little more deeply if we can.


Why was chlorine prohibited from export to Iraq? Was it because Iraq used in it chemical weapons? Why were the sanctions in place anyway? Did the application of these sanctions have anything to do with Iraq dishonoring the 1991 cease-fire agreement and expelling U.N. Inspectors?


I don't know the answers to much of this and I'm not saying the US or UN was entirely blameless. But Saddam chose the course with his actions, knowing whatever bad effects might befall his people could have been avoided had he acted differently. And he could still have reversed course at any later date and had sanctions lifted, but he didn't. So at a certain point the rest of the world has to consider whether capitulating to an evil regime in order to take internal pressure off its citizens is the right course to follow. Given that Saddam's regime was and is extremely dangerous, it is a difficult question indeed, balancing the humanitarian outlook against the need to restrict Iraq from further buildups and evil actions.


I guess we should have just taken control of Iraq eleven years ago and found some Islamic Democrats to run for office over there;-) Seriously though, I think a lot of misery could have been averted had Saddam been ousted but who can know for sure.

im not really saying US policy was bad, im just saying it was a conscious decision to inflict serious damage on the civilian population. thats all. i dont think that point can be argued.


brad

I will pull a semi-Mr. Blonde argument and say that decision was made by powers both outside Iraq and inside Iraq.


I will however concede that regarding the water issue, it was not entirely a guns vs. butter matter. Thanks for providing that info. (the first I've been aware of it).

If the Iraqis can acquire nuclear material on the black market, then they could certainly acquire water treatment technology.

is that a fact or an opinion. what are your assumptions.


brad

For someone that claims to be 13 years old, you sure sound like a twin John Walker.

Let's just bake Arafat some cookies. He and Saddam and Osama will all behave if we just show them that they are loved.

'For someone that claims to be 13 years old'


thats my brother. (not John Walker)


brad

Another pointless addition to the forum. Well done, Ray.