If you're on the fence about the war, listen to this...

[rexalllsc]

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

[Calis]

Very very good listen, excellent points. Good to hear an opinion like that from someone FROM there.

I know it's not a humorous thing, but I gotta kick out of the Nickelodeon(however it's spelled) diplomacy comment. That was good stuff.

[Tarkus]

That was great. It would be interesting to see if some of the big anti-war folks here could give an answer to that question. The challenge has been made. And please don't do what the little girl did.

Tarkus

P.S. The Nickelodeon comment should make our Quote of the Moment at some point.

[John Galt]

Just like O'Reilly, pick a weak spokesperson, browbeat them, and then believe that ant-war advocates have nothing to say.

And Tarkus, in many threads, you have seen me argue that no one defends Saddam as a good leader and the Iraqi people would be better served by a free society. Many of us believe, however, that war will not achieve that result and other options (like lifting sanctions) should be considered. Further, the war will cause a backlash that will increase terrorism and the end result will probably be: more instability around the globe, more deaths American and Iraqi, and a leader probably just as bad as Saddam leading a war-torn Iraq with people starving. Stop pretending that the anti-war side has no argument by refusing to engage it.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Tarkus
That was great. It would be interesting to see if some of the big anti-war folks here could give an answer to that question. The challenge has been made. And please don't do what the little girl did.

Tarkus

P.S. The Nickelodeon comment should make our Quote of the Moment at some point.

I love the long pauses...she can't argue the point he makes.

[albionmoonlight]

For those of us who can't access the mp3, could we get a transcript and/or summary.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
Just like O'Reilly, pick a weak spokesperson, browbeat them, and then believe that ant-war advocates have nothing to say.

And Tarkus, in many threads, you have seen me argue that no one defends Saddam as a good leader and the Iraqi people would be better served by a free society. Many of us believe, however, that war will not achieve that result and other options (like lifting sanctions) should be considered. Further, the war will cause a backlash that will increase terrorism and the end result will probably be: more instability around the globe, more deaths American and Iraqi, and a leader probably just as bad as Saddam leading a war-torn Iraq with people starving. Stop pretending that the anti-war side has no argument by refusing to engage it.

You still haven't answered the guy's question.

Tarkus

[John Galt]

It is basically an Iraqi caller defending the war by arguing that leaving Saddam in power will result in more suffering of the Iraqi people. The caller and a host gang up on what sounds like a teenage girl who is against the war. She obviously can't answer the challenges and doesn't know much and is not given much of a chance to speak. It is embarassing for both sides and really doesn't have any debate involved.

I think the challenge being referred to in this thread is the caller's demand that the girl explain why leaving Saddam in power is good for Iraq (as though war and nothing are the only options). She never completes a sentence in reply, but it is clear she isn't really on the right track.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Tarkus
You still haven't answered the guy's question.

Tarkus

I did - I said the choice isn't between war and Saddam - there are other options. Just because you don't like those options does not mean they don't exist.

And it amazes me how someone ends every post with the rolling eyes never seems to read what anyone who disagrees with him has written.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by John Galt
you have seen me argue that no one defends Saddam as a good leader and the Iraqi people would be better served by a free society. Many of us believe, however, that war will not achieve that result

Really, you honestly do not believe that the ending of this war will be a new leadership for Iraq? I do not mean to attack you by singling out this point, as all your others are at least debatable (hence all the debate) but I have not seen any informed opinion that actually believes Saddam will survive this conflict as dictator of Iraq.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Samdari
Really, you honestly do not believe that the ending of this war will be a new leadership for Iraq? I do not mean to attack you by singling out this point, as all your others are at least debatable (hence all the debate) but I have not seen any informed opinion that actually believes Saddam will survive this conflict as dictator of Iraq.

My post goes on to say that leadership in its place will probably not be much better. Our post-war democracy building efforts since WWII have been pretty dismal failures. And given that we continue to aid countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey to wage this war, it makes me believe that 10 years from now we will be having discussions similar to "why did we aid Saddam all those years" or "why did we give money to Bin Laden and his people in Afghanistan." Any gains in Iraq (which are probably minimal) will be more than offset with our continued buttressing of other bad regimes.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
I did - I said the choice isn't between war and Saddam - there are other options. Just because you don't like those options does not mean they don't exist.

And it amazes me how someone ends every post with the rolling eyes never seems to read what anyone who disagrees with him has written.

John, you're as bad as the little girl. You have not answered the question. You have sidestepped the question. It's a fact that either we go to war or Saddam stays in power. It's a very simple question. How exactly would leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Let's hear a direct answer.

Tarkus

[John Galt]

Tarkus asks a little girl, "when are you going to tell your parents that your pregnant."

The little girl replies, "but, I'm not pregnant."

Tarkus says, "it is a simple question - answer it."

The little girl says, "I did - I'm not pregnant."

Tarkus, "No, I want a direct answer to when you are going to tell your parents that you are pregnant."



Tarkus, I answer the question by saying the choice isn't between war and removing Saddam. Questions that force a false choice are answered by arguing that the choice is false. Again, you don't have to believe my reply, but at least acknowledge it is there.

[EagleFan]

Ending sanctions won't help the situation, only continue to increase his power.

They have very little now. He controls what his people get, and keeps it at very little to maintain his power.

Sanctions are lifted. He still controls what his people get and now he has even more. This gives him even more power as he would have even more to dangle in front of his people to control them.

Of course then over time there would be another revolt that would start up as people would get fed up with this but he would launch some more chemical attacks to slaughter many thousands of people to put down the attack. That would lead to more UN sanctions for a while because the UN would have already shown him that all they will do is give him a slap on the wrist and say "Bad Saddam!". He can then play games again for a while and eventually get sanctions lifted again. By then it will be one of his sons probably taking over with the same ruthlessness and the pattern continues.

[Tarkus]

John, I understand totally what you are saying but since you're having such a difficult time answering the question, I'll answer it for you.

It doesn't.

Tarkus

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tarkus
John, you're as bad as the little girl. You have not answered the question. You have sidestepped the question. It's a fact that either we go to war or Saddam stays in power. It's a very simple question. How exactly would leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Let's hear a direct answer.

Tarkus

So Tarkus are you dense or just stupid?

Answer the question...those are your only two options.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
So Tarkus are you dense or just stupid?

Answer the question...those are your only two options.

Dense.

Tarkus

[Tarkus]

dola

Bee, in all seriousness it wasn't that type of question. The answer is either it does and this is how, or it doesn't.

Tarkus

[John Galt]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Ending sanctions won't help the situation, only continue to increase his power.

They have very little now. He controls what his people get, and keeps it at very little to maintain his power.

Sanctions are lifted. He still controls what his people get and now he has even more. This gives him even more power as he would have even more to dangle in front of his people to control them.

Of course then over time there would be another revolt that would start up as people would get fed up with this but he would launch some more chemical attacks to slaughter many thousands of people to put down the attack. That would lead to more UN sanctions for a while because the UN would have already shown him that all they will do is give him a slap on the wrist and say "Bad Saddam!". He can then play games again for a while and eventually get sanctions lifted again. By then it will be one of his sons probably taking over with the same ruthlessness and the pattern continues.

I admit lifting sanctions after all this time isn't as likely to work. It would have been much easier had we never pursued such a misguided policy.

Still, I believe the way democracies develop is through the development of a middle class, trade, and economic growth. Sanctions have made that impossible in Iraq. In numerous places around the globe, democracy has taken hold in countries where it was considered impossible to thrive (Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and even China is on the way). The places where it continues to suffer is in Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq. We tend to believe sanctions "punish" regimes, but all they really do is isolate and build resentment. Sanctions have no success in the post-cold war world. Lifting sanctions combined with confidence-building measures will not work in the short-term, but it is the only way for democracy and freedom to take hold in the long term.

Our misguided sanctions policy has starved millions in North Korea and Iraq and not done one thing to promote democracy. It may be hard to dig ourselves out of the hole we have dug, but it is a lot more likely to have a lasting effect than war.

[albionmoonlight]

John--

How many billable hours do you find yourself losing to this board?

I'm going to have to cut back for a while in order to make sure that I can actually leave the office at a reasonable hour.

--Eric

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Tarkus
John, I understand totally what you are saying but since you're having such a difficult time answering the question, I'll answer it for you.

It doesn't.

Tarkus

And so Tarkus the Ostrich sticks his head back in the sand.

If you can't see that I don't support Saddam being in power (and have offered a possible solution - even if you don't agree with it) and that I have answered the challenge, then you really have had your head buried in the sand too long.

And Bee - that was very funny.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
John--

How many billable hours do you find yourself losing to this board?

I'm going to have to cut back for a while in order to make sure that I can actually leave the office at a reasonable hour.

--Eric

Lately it has been bad - I have a lot of work and I still find myself on this board. My girlfriend has gotten the short end of the stick.

[EagleFan]

Also, as for the girl representing the anti-war movement. That's a joke. But the problem is that some of the most vocal on both sides of the fence have no real grasp on the issues, not saying that I do.

[Calis]

Yeah, I completely agree with what EagleFan said, this is just one example. It's not a matter of them picking a horrible representative to argue the anti-war movement, it's just the matter that people will fall on either side of the debate, and have such strong opinions, be completely blind to the other perspective, and have no frigging clue whatsoever what the issues behind it actually are.

Me, I don't really know what's going on for sure either, and I'm not sure whether I'm for or against, either way though.. I'm a member of the United States Military, so in the long run, it matters very little whether I'm for or against, I just do my job. Sometimes it's better to be oblivious.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tarkus
dola

Bee, in all seriousness it wasn't that type of question. The answer is either it does and this is how, or it doesn't.

Tarkus

It seems like a loaded question to me. Kind of like a anti-war guy asking someone for the war "Why do you want to kill Iraqi babies?" That's not the point of the war, just like keeping Saddam in power is not the point of the anti-war people.

Most of the anti-war people I know think there were other ways to remove Saddam and/or lessen the hardships of the Iraqi people. I may not completely agree with those points, but I don't think anyone I know who is against the war is actually in favor of letting things remain the same in Iraq. They may question why Iraq and why not Saudi Arabia or Iran or North Korea or Russia or [fill in the name of your favorite horrible government]? There are lots of countries out there that commit atrocities against their own people, who support terrorism, who are trying to gain WMDs, etc. But they know things are bad in Iraq too, they just have their own ideas of the best way to go about causing change there. Just because sanctions didn't work, doesn't mean the only other option was war. It might have been the best option, but the antiwar people think there might have been other options that we didn't consider that might have been better. Again, I'm not saying I completely agree with that sentiment, but I do understand where they are coming from and I don't think it has to do with leaving things as they are.

[Bee]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Also, as for the girl representing the anti-war movement. That's a joke. But the problem is that some of the most vocal on both sides of the fence have no real grasp on the issues, not saying that I do.

That's true. It's not surprising either since both sides throws out so much propaganda that it's hard to find the real debates and the real points on each side.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Tarkus
John, you're as bad as the little girl. You have not answered the question. You have sidestepped the question. It's a fact that either we go to war or Saddam stays in power. It's a very simple question. How exactly would leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? Let's hear a direct answer.

Tarkus

Are you fucking daft? John's solution is sending an elite group from the Washington Square Forensic Team on a high risk paradrop mission into the heart of Baghdad for a winner take all 3 on 3.

[sterlingice]

Lately it has been bad - I have a lot of work and I still find myself on this board. My girlfriend has gotten the short end of the stick.

One has to wonder whether that was intentional or unintentional wording

And if it was intentional, which double entendre are we to use?

SI

[John Galt]

Originally posted by sterlingice
One has to wonder whether that was intentional or unintentional wording

And if it was intentional, which double entendre are we to use?

SI

I'm hoping that it was unintentional and not subconscious, but you would have to ask her.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by John Galt
I did - I said the choice isn't between war and Saddam - there are other options. Just because you don't like those options does not mean they don't exist.

THere are toher options between war and having Saddam? Sorry could you explain that one to me? THe ONLY way to remove Saddam is through war. There are only two options.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by stkelly52
THere are toher options between war and having Saddam? Sorry could you explain that one to me? THe ONLY way to remove Saddam is through war. There are only two options.

See above (lifting sanctions post).

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Fritz
Are you fucking daft? John's solution is sending an elite group from the Washington Square Forensic Team on a high risk paradrop mission into the heart of Baghdad for a winner take all 3 on 3.

Oh, now I got it.

Tarkus

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
And so Tarkus the Ostrich sticks his head back in the sand.

If you can't see that I don't support Saddam being in power (and have offered a possible solution - even if you don't agree with it) and that I have answered the challenge, then you really have had your head buried in the sand too long.

And Bee - that was very funny.

You know John, how you can get on my case and call me rude for throwing one liners at you, have me apologize and say I won't do it anymore, and then spew these personal attacks is utterly amazing.


Tarkus

P.S. Yes, I know Bee was joking, which is why I joked back. And when I apologized to you I said I was always kidding and never intended to really offend you. However, I guess what's good enough for everyone else is not good enough for you.

[John Galt]

I apologize if the ostrich thing upset you. I only meant it as a metaphor because you seem unwilling to believe that I actually replied to the question (and given that you were taking liberties in answering the question for me).

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
It seems like a loaded question to me. Kind of like a anti-war guy asking someone for the war "Why do you want to kill Iraqi babies?" That's not the point of the war, just like keeping Saddam in power is not the point of the anti-war people.

Most of the anti-war people I know think there were other ways to remove Saddam and/or lessen the hardships of the Iraqi people. I may not completely agree with those points, but I don't think anyone I know who is against the war is actually in favor of letting things remain the same in Iraq. They may question why Iraq and why not Saudi Arabia or Iran or North Korea or Russia or [fill in the name of your favorite horrible government]? There are lots of countries out there that commit atrocities against their own people, who support terrorism, who are trying to gain WMDs, etc. But they know things are bad in Iraq too, they just have their own ideas of the best way to go about causing change there. Just because sanctions didn't work, doesn't mean the only other option was war. It might have been the best option, but the antiwar people think there might have been other options that we didn't consider that might have been better. Again, I'm not saying I completely agree with that sentiment, but I do understand where they are coming from and I don't think it has to do with leaving things as they are.

double dola

Bee, I really don't think it's that loaded of a question and could have been answered quite easily a number of ways. With that being said I would love to know how you could possibly solve the problems that come along with Saddam without removing him. If sanctions, followed by the threat of war didn't get him to disarm, just what else did you think will work? You have many problems that go along with Saddam, WMD, support of terrorists, oppression of the Iraqi people, murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, etc. etc. Just how do you think you're going to get rid of these problems without getting rid of Saddam. Remember the guy in the recording was an Iraqi who left his country to get away from the life that exsited under Saddam. What exactly are you going to tell him you'll do so that it will be safe for him to go back there?

Tarkus

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
I apologize if the ostrich thing upset you. I only meant it as a metaphor because you seem unwilling to believe that I actually replied to the question (and given that you were taking liberties in answering the question for me).

Stuff like that generally doesn't upset. Since I dish it out from time to time I can't complain when people give it back. I only have a problem when someone calls me rude for doing it and then turns around and does the same thing.

Tarkus

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
My girlfriend has gotten the short end of the stick.

I believe I deserve some kind of medal for not taking a swing at THAT pitch.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tarkus
double dola

Bee, I really don't think it's that loaded of a question and could have been answered quite easily a number of ways. With that being said I would love to know how you could possibly solve the problems that come along with Saddam without removing him. If sanctions, followed by the threat of war didn't get him to disarm, just what else did you think will work? You have many problems that go along with Saddam, WMD, support of terrorists, oppression of the Iraqi people, murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, etc. etc. Just how do you think you're going to get rid of these problems without getting rid of Saddam. Remember the guy in the recording was an Iraqi who left his country to get away from the life that exsited under Saddam. What exactly are you going to tell him you'll do so that it will be safe for him to go back there?

Tarkus

I still think the question was loaded (maybe not as loaded as my question to you, but still loaded).

I wrote a really long post, but deleted it. I don't think I can really convince you there were other options because you believe there wasn't and that's fine. You have that right as an American to believe what you want, just like those against the war have the right to believe there were other options.

I guess my answer to all your other questions is why is it the responsibility of the US to fix everything in Iraq? Does that responsibility end in Iraq, or do we need to fix everything in North Korea next? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Russia? China? South America? Africa? Israel? Where is the line that a repressive regime becomes "acceptable" and who makes that call?

Edit: I just want to say while I do support the war effort, I think there are many questions like these that will have to be answered at some point in the future and those are going to be hard decisions. I wouldn't want to tell the Iraqi exile that he'll never be able to go home because of a repressive regime...but I also don't want to have to tell that to any of the other exiles who have had to flee the dozens of other countries out there because of repressive regimes.

[Iceberg]

Originally posted by John Galt
I admit lifting sanctions after all this time isn't as likely to work.

Originally posted by John Galt
See above (lifting sanctions post).

Appears a little contradictory to me. Now could you explain since as you said it is too late to lift sanctions how on earth we could get rid of saddam without war? I have been dying to someone answer that for me.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by John Galt
I did - I said the choice isn't between war and Saddam - there are other options. Just because you don't like those options does not mean they don't exist.

Name them. Realistic ones, not "lifting sanctions"...the sanctions are there for a reason, John.

[Wolfpack]

The thing is the war in progress has now rendered this discussion moot. The US and UK are committed at this point to winning the war and deposing Hussein with as little suffering to innocents as can be done in such a situation. We are not going to simply say "Whoops! Sorry! Just kidding! To make up for it, we'll drop sanctions and leave the region." Will not happen.

I do agree with JG's assertion than sanctions typically don't work very well, the most egregious example being Cuba. Commentators are always fond of saying how many presidents Castro has outlasted, which is an easy thing for him to do since he doesn't have to be answerable to his people. With or without sanctions, I think, despots will rule until they die. Despots control all the levers of power, typically have apparatuses that deal harshly with opposition, and generally enrich themselves at the expense of the people. Therefore, it is very hard for people to have a popular uprising to overthrow such men. The question is whether the despot has the ability to pass control to trusted followers upon his death. In the case of Hussein, his sons were likely to be heirs of his little dictatorship and kept the misery of the Iraqis going. How long should the people wait before such a regime collapses without external efforts forcing it to do so?

Then again, China isn't the best example of a nation turning democratic without sanctions as the people there are more content with earning a living rather than doing anything democratic since the Politburo still retains political control of the country. Call it a "comfortable concentration camp" to borrow a phrase of the left. You can do what you want, when you want, make a pile of money at it, just don't cross the government (see Tiannamen Square, circa 1989).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Iceberg
Appears a little contradictory to me. Now could you explain since as you said it is too late to lift sanctions how on earth we could get rid of saddam without war? I have been dying to someone answer that for me.

If you read the rest of the first post you quoted, I said that the situation is complicated because we have had sanctions so long, but lifting them is still the best option.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Name them. Realistic ones, not "lifting sanctions"...the sanctions are there for a reason, John.

I don't know why lifting sanctions isn't "realistic." And if you read my post, I explain why the "reasons" for sanctions are misguided. Sanctions don't work - they make us feel better, but they usually have the opposite effect. The Republicans used to believe that and for some reason they forgot that lesson along the way.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Wolfpack
The thing is the war in progress has now rendered this discussion moot. The US and UK are committed at this point to winning the war and deposing Hussein with as little suffering to innocents as can be done in such a situation. We are not going to simply say "Whoops! Sorry! Just kidding! To make up for it, we'll drop sanctions and leave the region." Will not happen.

This begs the question... why are protesters still protesting to end the war? Don't they realize what a crummy position everybody would be in if indeed that happened?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
I guess my answer to all your other questions is why is it the responsibility of the US to fix everything in Iraq? Does that responsibility end in Iraq, or do we need to fix everything in North Korea next? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Russia? China? South America? Africa? Israel? Where is the line that a repressive regime becomes "acceptable" and who makes that call?

That's actually an excellent question and I do not have an answer. I do think there was a good argument to made that we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq (although I personally think we should have). What I don't believe is that as long as Saddam was in charge, anything other than a war was going to make Iraq comply with the 17 UN resolutions. Like I said, whether we should have gone to war over them is an entirely different question.

Tarkus

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by John Galt
I don't know why lifting sanctions isn't "realistic." And if you read my post, I explain why the "reasons" for sanctions are misguided. Sanctions don't work - they make us feel better, but they usually have the opposite effect. The Republicans used to believe that and for some reason they forgot that lesson along the way.

Sanctions are a way of taking action w/o using the military. Removing sanctions does not remove the problem (Saddam Hussein and his sons).

Again, "Name them. Realistic ones, not "lifting sanctions"...the sanctions are there for a reason, John. " Tell us how this can be solved w/o military intervention.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
This begs the question... why are protesters still protesting to end the war? Don't they realize what a crummy position everybody would be in if indeed that happened?

I think protests are still important for a couple reasons. First, they make this administration less bold in future interventions. Second, while I don't think it is realistic, I think the administration should withdraw from Iraq and pursue global negotiations with so-called "rogue" regimes and terrorist groups. Drawing a "line in the sand" and saying the US will take the first step in ending violence would send a powerful signal to those who oppose us. Ending the war with reason isn't the same as just ending the war.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Sanctions are a way of taking action w/o using the military. Removing sanctions does not remove the problem (Saddam Hussein and his sons).

Again, "Name them. Realistic ones, not "lifting sanctions"...the sanctions are there for a reason, John. " Tell us how this can be solved w/o military intervention.

As I said above and in other threads, lifting sanctions helps the economy develop, allowing a middle class to grow. Also economic access tends to decrease the hold of the central government. Saddam wouldn't be gone tomorrow, but his control would slowly lessen. If we had never applied sanctions 12 years ago, a whole different Iraq may have developed and we wouldn't be where we are today. Japan and Germany were integrated after WWII, China's government has been increasingly frustrated trying to control its society's liberalization, and numerous other countries have succeeded in transition with a free trade approach. War, on the other hand, usually has replaced one bad leader with another. Meanwhile, the allies we make in the war usually come back to haunt us (like Saddam and Bin Laden). The sanctions may be "there for a reason," but the reason is misguided.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by John Galt
As I said above and in other threads, lifting sanctions helps the economy develop, allowing a middle class to grow. Also economic access tends to decrease the hold of the central government.

Another result of lifting sanctions might be that the economy develops, Saddam gets even more money to build more castles, buy more weapons, and develop more WMD. The problem in Iraq will not go away until Saddam goes away, and with his sons right in line to succeed him if he were to die of natural causes, I think you've got a mess there until the current regime is eliminated.

Tarkus

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by John Galt
As I said above and in other threads, lifting sanctions helps the economy develop, allowing a middle class to grow. Also economic access tends to decrease the hold of the central government. Saddam wouldn't be gone tomorrow, but his control would slowly lessen. If we had never applied sanctions 12 years ago, a whole different Iraq may have developed and we wouldn't be where we are today. Japan and Germany were integrated after WWII, China's government has been increasingly frustrated trying to control its society's liberalization, and numerous other countries have succeeded in transition with a free trade approach. War, on the other hand, usually has replaced one bad leader with another. Meanwhile, the allies we make in the war usually come back to haunt us (like Saddam and Bin Laden). The sanctions may be "there for a reason," but the reason is misguided.

Obviously you're never going to answer the question.

Sanctions were place on Iraq FOR A REASON. Saddam doesn't care about his people. Saddam is never going to care about his people, sanctions or not. Saddam is Saddam, with or without sanctions. There is no "developing" when you have a murderous tyrant at the helm.

Get a drip.