You mean because of Saddam Hussein. Keep in mind the billions spent on palaces during the sanction years. Or how about the scandalous Oil-For-Food program. Despite its name, plenty of non-food related items was allowed in OFF. The program was not managed by US but by the UN. During the sanction years, the US was Iraq's largest singular buyer of Iraqi oil for OFF, not because we needed Iraqi oil. The money was deposited into an escrow account that was also managed by the UN, not US. With the exception of the US, Saddam played everyone on the UN Security Council as far as OFF goes. Any wonder why today China benefit quite well in Iraqi oil contracts?
The end result is still the same.
good intentions do not mean good results.
oh btw Food for Oil was established in 95. for the purpose to alleviate the effect of sanctions on civilians.
before that you still had the massive sanctions against Iraq.
Sanctions like these are based on the logic that one can make a regime change by make its people's life so miserable ( by depravation of civil goods )that they will rise up and revolt thus topple of regime.
This logic is almost same one strategic bombing is based on: that one can make a regime change by make its people's life so miserable ( by massive aerial bombardment of civilian population ) that they will rise up and revolt thus topple of regime.
This logic is also the same one terrorists use: that one can make a political change by make its people's life so miserable ( by acts of terror against a civilian population ) that they will rise up and demand a political change.
see the parallels?
I guess some acts of deprivation against civilians are more acceptable if one can label a regime "evil" and starve and bomb instead of using individual acts of terror.
and that it is the big and powerful that does it.
If one analyzes from a purely utilitarian view, then I would say what we call "terrorism" actually has more utility. because it actually kills far less people (instead of mass starvation and death by strategic bombing, which historically has had far far more victims than terrorist acts) to achieve a political change.
But some how one is more acceptable in international civility than the other.
for the record: I am against any acts of depravation against a civilian population: either with terror, aerial bombardment, or sanctions.
there is a far more effective way to settle differences: we can make the politicans having duels with each other, instead of try to make innocent people kill other innocent people.
for example: GWB could have a pistol duel with OBL. I am sure GWB will win. that is far less costly than the two wars and however many killed.
