I just breezed through the article, but the point of it seems to be on the futility and useless nature of the sanctions regime to begin with, not justifying the American position of 'legally' attaining oil from Iraq during this period.
France and Russia (and Germany?) delayed and could have prevented the second Gulf conflict, but they underestimated American resolve and support for unilateral intervention.
Funny how so many who didn't want to see an invasion, were, in fact, a lot more willing to trade with Iraq then blow them up. Just like Halliburton under Cheney.
If trading with Hussein during sanctions is 'wrong', should Halliburton have been buying oil, knowing it would go straight into Saddam's pocket?
|