Reply #62: Better option for who? [View All]

[The2ndWheel]

"I won't go into how I felt how poorly the sanctions were monitored or applied, but it sure was a lot better option than sending in F-15s and thousands of troops."

Maybe if it was ever going to touch the people that actually did the crime. But when do those in power ever get hurt?

After average people start dying because of the sanctions(the sanctions themselves, or how they're applied, whatever), isn't it time to do something else? And I don't mean a war(just for clarification).

"Clinton signed the act as a "sense of Congress" resolution, not as a part of his foreign policy. It was looked at as a "feel good" thing to do that could be used to show how tough a politician could be about Saddam."

Good way to run a government. I guess that's why those sanctions continued. It was a "feel good" way to deal with the situation. No war, no dead Americans. A few dead Iraqi's, but, like now, they don't count.

Then the people that wrote the act get into power, and use the act as one of their justifications for going to war. There goes that law of unintended consequences.

"Also, this came on the tail of Saddam kicking out the U.N. inspectors and several showdowns that only fueled the right wing's fear mongering and didn't help Saddam's cause internationally either."

Alright, so in response, you just feel like signing something into law that looks good? Clinton was the President of the US, right?

So Bush signs bills to make things worse for people, and Clinton(other than things like the Telecommunications Act and NAFTA) signs bills to make him look good in the eyes of people?

I love this civilized global system we have.