[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

How about the Iraq sanctions, Sauron? They were responsible for hundreds of thousands dead, and as Michael notes in the Amy Goodman quote, Madeleine Albright famously said they believed the price (a half million dead children) was worth it.

I have never been a fan of the Iraq food/medicine sanctions. However, there's a history here that Michael is either ignorant of, or glossing over.

1. The Iraq sanctions are of several kinds, and there is a tendency to deliberately blur them:

(a) sanctions on food, medicine, etc. - this was pointless and should not have occured;
(b) sanctions on weapons, technology, etc. - this was effective, and was one key reason why Saddam's weapons programs were successfully contained;

Notice that we could have had (b) without (a), and achieved all the military goals we wanted. My objection is to (a), but I support (b).

3. Furthermore, the deaths from sanctions -- while high - are overstated -- and the responsibility of Saddam Hussein in all of this is often forgotten:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

4. Moreover, Michael forgets (or does not know) that these sanctions were in place by the UN, not the USA. It's obvious that the USA twisted a lot of arms in the UN to make this happen; I'm not trying to split hairs here. But this wasn't a US-specific action.

5. Finally, Michael's comment that it was democratic policy of sanctions at work here ignores the fact that sanctions were imposed in 1990 at the behest and the pushing of Bush's own father - a Republican.

I think Michael's basic point about the both parties having blood on their hands is pretty undisputable.

Well,

1. Michael made a claim for hundreds of thousands of dead around the world - pointing out Iraq sanctions does not support that specific claim;

2. The implication is that both parties have blood, therefore both parties are equally guilty - I do not buy that, either. The question of scope is relevant. The current GOP has done more damage to international relations in five years, than was done in the preceding 20 years.

Edited to add:

Here is an excellent article from the prestigious Foreign Affairs quarterly on the sanctions. Note how under the second Bush administration, they actually seemed to "get it" - at least for awhile, anyhow:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200407...ns-worked.html

One major reason for this renewed consensus was the creation of a new "smart" sanctions regime. The goal of "smart" sanctions was to focus the system more narrowly, blocking weapons and military supplies without preventing civilian trade. This would enable the rehabilitation of Iraq's economy without allowing rearmament or a military build-up by Saddam. Secretary of State Colin Powell launched a concerted diplomatic effort to build support for reformulating sanctions, and, in the negotiations over the proposed plan, agreed to release holds that the United States had placed on oil-for-food contracts, enabling civilian trade contracts to flow to Russia, China, and France. Restrictions on civilian imports were lifted while a strict arms embargo remained in place, and a new system was created for monitoring potential dual-use items. As the purpose of sanctions narrowed to preventing weapons imports without blocking civilian trade, international support for them increased considerably: "smart" sanctions removed the controversial humanitarian issue from the debate, focusing coercive pressure in a way that everyone could agree on. The divisions within the Security Council that had surfaced in the late 1990s gave way to a new consensus in 2002. The pieces were in place for a long-term military containment system. The new sanctions resolution restored political consensus in the Security Council and created an arms-denial system that could have been sustained indefinitely.

But of course, this was under Powell and before the neocons and their PNAC got ahold of US foreign policy and created the current debacle.