Thursday, March 15, 2012

Harsh sanctions may strengthen Iranian regime

just like sanctions strengthened Saddam, Chomsky argues:

'The sanctions against Iran may have the same effect as their predecessors against Iraq, which were condemned as “genocidal” by the respected U.N. diplomats who administered them before finally resigning in protest.

The Iraq sanctions devastated the population and strengthened Saddam Hussein, probably saving him from the fate of a rogues’ gallery of other tyrants supported by the U.S.-U.K. – tyrants who prospered virtually to the day when various internal revolts overthrew them.'


anan said...

What an incredibly stupid statement.

The sanctions helped Saddam fight the Iraqi resistance 1980-2003? What a complete moron.

Presumably the aid the Iraqi resistance received from 15 countries 1980-2003 also helped Saddam.

Saddam was put in power by the US? :LOL:

Saddam was allied with the Soviet Union [and France and India] against America 1968-1990. After the Iran Iraq war broke out in 1980, Saddam got some partial American help against Khomeini. But much less help than he received from USSR, France and India.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The argument is that sanctions made the Iraqi people weaker, and therefore made Saddam stronger.

anan said...

Mojo, the argument makes no sense. Iraq had an active resistance movement 1980-2003. In 1980 the Iraqi resistance so threatened Saddam, he felt he had no choice but to attack their sanctuaries, command and control and logistics in Iran to stay in power.

The sanctions sharply cut Saddam's revenues, ability to import weapons, and ability to train his security forces. They greatly weakened Saddam's security apparatus.

This is why Saddam was so scared of the Iraqi resistance [70 K Peshmerga, 30 K Badr/ISCI/SCIRI, Chalabi/Sadrists, etc.]

In the final days of Saddam's regime, Saddam was paranoid that the resistance would overthrow him. Until the end Saddam seemed more afraid of the Iraqi resistance than he was of the US lead coalition. Saddam didn't allow his forces to redeploy to fight the US forces to deter the resistance. He also didn't allow bridges to be blown up because he feared it would help the Iraqi resistance in the South.

The sanctions greatly hurt Iraqi civilians. But without a doubt, the sanctions greatly weakened the relative balance of power of the Saddamists versus the Iraqi resistance. Wasn't that the "REAL" point of the sanctions?

Does Chomsky have a negative IQ?

While is is true that Sanctions damaged the Iraqi economy and lead to great economic hardship on the part of the Iraqi people, Saddam wasted billions on his palaces. If Saddam wanted, he could have alleviated the suffering of the Iraqi people by cutting spending on his palaces and security forces. Saddam didn't.

Most of the deaths were because Saddam reduced the health department budget to about $20 million a year. Education department was similarly reduced to about $20 million/year. The sanctions didn't force Saddam to do this.

Iraq is one of the richest countries in the world in fresh drinking water and high yield farm land. If Saddam hadn't completely wrecked the Iraqi economy, Iraq would have had plenty of water and food. [And a lot extra to export for money as well.]

anan said...

Chomsky is a hypocrite. He calls for imposing harsh sanctions on every country on earth. [He calls for large restrictions on imports, exports and international investment.]

Yet Chomsky claims he opposes sanctions on a small number of countries. Does anyone believe him?

Muhannad said...

Chomsky has always been concerned about class inequality.

"A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that costs and risks are socialized to the extent possible, while profit is privatized."

-Noam Chomsky

Dolly said...

Chomsky is a commie and he is wrong. The reason bailouts are done, is because the government fears high unemployment in the case of economic collapse. Therefore the government tries to safeguard the people's interest by propping up corporations. If the electorate doesn't agree, they can choose another government in the next election cycle.
So it's hypocritical to slam bailouts, when in actuality they are done by an elected government to protect workers. I'm sure the same chomskyites would complain if there were no bailouts and unemployment went to 30%.

Anonymous said...

Anand and Dolly together at last! Completely unable to understand the gist of Chomsky. Completely unable to anything...

Ain't love grand.


Iraqi Mojo said...

I hate to say it, but Dolly makes a good point. Most Democrats would probably defend Obama's bailout of General Motors, while Republicans like Mitt Romney have criticized it. If Bush had bailed out GM, Republicans would defend the bailout and Democrats would criticize it.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The flaw with Chomsky's statement is that not all costs and risks are socialized. Many corporations failed and were not bailed out. Pan Am comes to mind.

Also, socialized risk like the FDIC bails out the poor and middle class if the bank fails.

Now only if America would socialize healthcare, I'd say socialized costs and risk is a good thing.

Anonymous said...


Maury said...

"If Bush had bailed out GM, Republicans would defend the bailout and Democrats would criticize it."

Bush started the bailout with $25 billion. Oboma followed through with another $55 billion. Bush just said a month ago that he'd do it all over again, given the chance.

Republicans have taken to calling GM Government Motors, and refer to the Volt as the Obama Car. They're blaming the wrong man. Bush not only started the bailout, he also started the $7500 rebate for buying an EV. Besides healthcare, I can't think of a thing Obama has done on his own. It's as if someone cloned Bush and gave him a tan.