AllHailIndia wrote:
As I see it, Bill Clinton does deserve to be hanged for his stubborn refusal to remove sanctions against Iraq. Sanctions as such may not be evil, (hell they were slapped on India too and nobody even remembers when they were initiated and when they were removed), but it is the people who they target is what matters.
The sanctions were designed by George Bush (Sr.) after the 1991 Gulf War to push the Iraqi people towards revolution against Hussein. Starvation wasn't the point so much as deprivation of luxury items. However, it became clear within a year that the Iraqi people themselves were indeed suffering unduly and were unable to rise against Hussein, so the by-then President Clinton pushed through the first UN-mandated reform that allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil to be able to buy critical medical and humanitarian supplies. This passed the UN, but Hussein refused for a few years, wanting all or nothing. Finally, in I believe 1994 or so he acquiesced and Iraq has been selling the full amount allotted by the UN mandate which should be enough to keep critical foodstuffs and medical supplies in decent supply - but both the UN and the Arab governments have all admitted that almost NONE of the money Hussein receives from these sales is going towards humanitarian supplies; it's all being funneled towards rebuilding the Iraqi military. For instance, Iraq installed a state-of-the-art fibre-optic radar system network in the late 1990s that he bought from the Chinese - a system that countries like the Netherlands or Portugal would be hard-pressed to afford. As well, Iraq has been very successful in smuggling even more oil than allowed by the UN mandate - and still none of it goes towards alleviating the pain of the Iraqi people. Why? Because it's a wonderful propaganda tool for Hussein, and besides people weakened by malnutrition are less able to revolt against his tyranny. The U.S. attempted to throw in the towel and just have military-targeted sanctions the year before last (under Clinton) but the French and Russians scuttled the vote in the UN, wanting all or nothing. (Again, both have significant oil development contracts with Baghdad that can't be utilized until sanctions are lifted.) This past week I read in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is trying again, this time dealing directly with Moscow and Paris.
But this just brings us back to the issue of who is a war criminal? This is the problem; that the world isn't always going to agree on who is or isn't. Hitler had signed an agreement with the Mufti of Jerusalem to liquidate all Jews, and indeed some radical Islamic groups still lament that he didn't succeed; if the world can't even agree that Hitler was a war criminal, then you see the problem.
Back on topic though, Sodak has mentioned some ideas that might be a first step. I would ask though how these suggestions would differ from the Geneva Convention? Yes, creating a moral standard for conduct is probably the only feasible first step but how could this expand beyond what international "norms" and standards that already exist? If they go too far they'll end up like the ill-fated Kellog-Briand Pact. I'm not disagreeing with you Sodak, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
As I see it, Bill Clinton does deserve to be hanged for his stubborn refusal to remove sanctions against Iraq. Sanctions as such may not be evil, (hell they were slapped on India too and nobody even remembers when they were initiated and when they were removed), but it is the people who they target is what matters.
The sanctions were designed by George Bush (Sr.) after the 1991 Gulf War to push the Iraqi people towards revolution against Hussein. Starvation wasn't the point so much as deprivation of luxury items. However, it became clear within a year that the Iraqi people themselves were indeed suffering unduly and were unable to rise against Hussein, so the by-then President Clinton pushed through the first UN-mandated reform that allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil to be able to buy critical medical and humanitarian supplies. This passed the UN, but Hussein refused for a few years, wanting all or nothing. Finally, in I believe 1994 or so he acquiesced and Iraq has been selling the full amount allotted by the UN mandate which should be enough to keep critical foodstuffs and medical supplies in decent supply - but both the UN and the Arab governments have all admitted that almost NONE of the money Hussein receives from these sales is going towards humanitarian supplies; it's all being funneled towards rebuilding the Iraqi military. For instance, Iraq installed a state-of-the-art fibre-optic radar system network in the late 1990s that he bought from the Chinese - a system that countries like the Netherlands or Portugal would be hard-pressed to afford. As well, Iraq has been very successful in smuggling even more oil than allowed by the UN mandate - and still none of it goes towards alleviating the pain of the Iraqi people. Why? Because it's a wonderful propaganda tool for Hussein, and besides people weakened by malnutrition are less able to revolt against his tyranny. The U.S. attempted to throw in the towel and just have military-targeted sanctions the year before last (under Clinton) but the French and Russians scuttled the vote in the UN, wanting all or nothing. (Again, both have significant oil development contracts with Baghdad that can't be utilized until sanctions are lifted.) This past week I read in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is trying again, this time dealing directly with Moscow and Paris.
But this just brings us back to the issue of who is a war criminal? This is the problem; that the world isn't always going to agree on who is or isn't. Hitler had signed an agreement with the Mufti of Jerusalem to liquidate all Jews, and indeed some radical Islamic groups still lament that he didn't succeed; if the world can't even agree that Hitler was a war criminal, then you see the problem.
Back on topic though, Sodak has mentioned some ideas that might be a first step. I would ask though how these suggestions would differ from the Geneva Convention? Yes, creating a moral standard for conduct is probably the only feasible first step but how could this expand beyond what international "norms" and standards that already exist? If they go too far they'll end up like the ill-fated Kellog-Briand Pact. I'm not disagreeing with you Sodak, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
