No, those are different. Both the PRC and the USSR were hesitant to push the nuclear card too far. There is no guarantee that will be true with Saddam. And 'containment' didn't really work anyway, neither in preventing proliferation (S Africa, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, the PRC, or the USSR), nor in stopping aggression (ask Hungary, Czechoslavakia, East Germany, Tibet, S. Korea, Kashmiris, Ethipiopians, Vietnamese, Angolans, Cubans, Nicaraguans and on and on). Sanctions worked in Chile, btw. Pinochet was successfully forced to enact the National Accords. But I believe that was a special case precisely for the reasons Major says we should 'constructively engage.' Mainly that both the populace and the ruling elite wanted capitalism. In the case of N Korea or Iraq, this is not necessarily true since a dictator rules with an iron grip controlling alla spects of society and economy. Not true of Pinochet, who was only trying to protect the capitalist system and infrastructure. So sanctions could work in some cases, but not in places like N Korea, or Cuba, or Iraq. In those places force is the only answer in the absence of capable domestic opposition. In Iraq Saddam takes a pistol to the oppositions head. Many times himself.
During the cold war the USSR and PRC didn't invade a neighboring country, with the exception of Afghanastan, and we helped them push the Ruskies out. It's apples and oranges again, can't compare the two situations.
Agreed. But containment obviously did work in the using of nuclear weapons. Or is that really the policy of deterrence? Do you think containment would have worked against Saddam after the first Gulf War? (I am conceeding that there will be a second Gulf War :s)
No. Two points on that: 1. I think containment can only work for a finite period of time. With Iraq, unlike even the USSR, you have a tremendous ability to turn natural resources into material wealth. So no matter when you envision stopping containment, even if it DID work, at that point Iraq could just build WMD rapidly, or even rebuild conventional forces rapidly. 2. Didn't we practice containment on Iraq after the first war? We know that he is building stuff he shouldn't. That is unquestioned and irrefutable. How is he doing this? Because he is getting resources from outside Iraq. From the French, and the Germans, and the Chinese and the Russians. Oh, wait. What a STRANGE COINCIDENCE. Isn't that crazy that those are the same countries that DON'T want us to remove Saddam. Wow!
we also fought multiple wars to contain the USSR and communism. and the PRC never really had expansionist tendencies outside of regaining Taiwan. and what have we been doing since the gulf war with saddam? i think you would call it containment. previously we used engagement and that led him to get cocky and try to take over kuwait. anyhow...how well has containment worked with saddam?
Understood. Saddam cannot get away with accepting no blame, but the question is how much resides with the US. If the deaths resulted from Saddam's 'games', the US is guilt free...IMO. But if it's true that the US played games with foodstuffs or pharmaceuticals which would directly impact the civilians, then we own some of those deaths also. I just wish there wasn't so damn much conflicting information. Seems like 'truths' can take 10, 20 or 50 years to finally 'leak' out, if ever.
What would happen if the Pope and the Dalai Lama were human shields? Mr. Chopra wants to find out: http://gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/article/0,1426,MCA_945_1774389,00.html
It's Dr., I like him, but his solution would work no better on Saddam than it would have on Hitler. It's not a unique question to pose on this board, but why didn't Chopra volunteer to go to Iraq to end Saddam's torture and murder? Why wasn't he a human shield for the Kurds? Rwandans? Kosovars? Bosnians?
Saddam has not invaded another country since the GWI, nor has he used WMD gratuitously on another country, nor has he tested a nuclear weapon, ...
How about many of the engagments between the invention of the castle and the invention of the cannon. It is called seige warfare. We are not really applying it correctly by allowing the oil for food program though. If Saddam's troops were starving right along with his people, then he wouldn't be in power for very long. I don't think this is the best course of action for us, but it does show many examples of effective use of sanctions.
yes, but he continues to rearm and hide weapons of mass destruction which he has been explicitly been banned from having. additionally, his regime is not any weaker. therefore containment has not worked and is actually failing when saddam continues to acquire and seek wmds and does not listen to the international community unless he is threatened with his removal from power. yes it has slowed him down, but it has not fixed the problem. saddam is continually showing himself to be the problem and there are no signs of any change in his behavior.
