<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>On Nov 19, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Steven L. Robinson wrote:<BR><BR>> Go back 15 years to 1991, to the eve of the Gulf War and recall  <BR>> many - perhaps most - of the liberal wing of the anti-war movement  <BR>> took the view that "we should let sanctions work."<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT face=Arial size=2>And Doug replied</FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>"I thought that was the liberal wing of the imperialist movement."<BR><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>But Steven is right, in their desperation, anti-war campaigners argued that economic sanctions were the better way to pressure Saddam's regime than military ones. I think that the model they had in mind was economic sanctions against South Africa. I can remember arguing that the difference was only one of degree, that sanctions of either kind reinforced the authority of the West over the region, to its detriment. But most people I knew thought that what I was saying was too holier-than-thou. I was right, though, if you will forgive me saying so. Economic sanctions hurt the people of Iraq and set a precedent for military sanctions when they failed to dislodge Saddam.</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>