I'll try no to overpost but:
As I read it he merely argues around the problemof sanctions, and that they punish the civilian population more than its leaders. I think it is difficult to argue against that.
He also brings up the point of ideology having influenced the rebuilding process more than common sense. Instead of letting the Swedish, Swiss and French firms that knew the infrastructure bid on the rebuilding contracts the contracts were handed out to American firms that so far have failed. Politics and ideology came in the way of reason.
By and large, I agree that sanctions punish the civilian population more than the leaders, but such sanctions seems to be the method preferred by the UN (and Sweded, Switzerland and France) when it comes to dealing with dictators like Saddam Hussein. Better to depose them, not that any of the usual suspects would go along with that even when given the choice and provocation.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the US as the bad guy here no matter how you want to spin it. I place the blame for any deaths caused by sanctions in Iraq on Saddam Hussein, then the UN, the EU, etc.
My heart doesn't bleed for the French, Swiss and Swedish firms that profited while Saddam was killing his people, hence my comment about no oil for blood. We are trying to help Iraq as best we can. Perhaps we might be more successful if Sweden, Switzerland and France offered help that wasn't contingent on getting more money for their help.
"I'm sorry, but I don't see the US as the bad guy here no matter how you want to spin it"
I didn't say that.
I did,however, say that the rebuilding of Iraq so far has failed to a large part because of ideology, nationalism and europhobia having come in the way of reason, whether it concerns the dealing of rebuilding contracts or the disbanding of the Iraqi military.