Wirt Atmar writes:

> Joe writes in defense of Denys' debunkment:
>
> > Full article http://www.irvinereview.org/guest1.htm
>
> I presume that you know that you're quoting a far right wing student
> newspaper at UC Irvine.
>
> These sorts of publications by kids in their teens and early twenties tend
to
> be filled with fearsome fulminations but very few facts -- and certainly
not
> much well modulated reason.

Whether "these sorts of publications" are filled with with few facts is not
the issue.  It's whether _this particular article_ is.   This article
provides more facts than you have so far.

Here's a page from PBS's Frontline with plenty of links:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

Here is an article from Matt Welch
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter02/polwin02-2.htm
And a more recent essay from him that includes things we have learned since
Saddam fell:
http://mattwelch.com/FreelanceSave/StarBabies.htm

Here are the last few sentences from that piece:
What's clear is that the Iraqi dictator recognized sanctions as one of
his only effective propaganda tools, which gave him material incentive
to exaggerate and worsen their impact.

Which is an excellent reason to question their continued infliction upon
countries such as Cuba, Libya and Myanmar. With the very notable
exception of South Africa, the sanction tool's track record in changing
dictatorial behavior (or triggering regime change, which is often the
real motivation) has been poor. Surely there must be some option between
all-out war and a slap on the wrist, preferably one that doesn't
contribute to thousands of needless deaths.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *