You, the members of the United States Congress, have often taken significant stands against international terrorism and acts of violence waged in order to create political divides. The decision to enter into the Vietnam Conflict, for example, was sparked by the perception of the level of control waged by North Vietnam and the necessity for a viable response to attempts at controlling the Pacific Rim. In the same way that Congress found it impossible to ignore the actions in the 1970s, the behaviors of Saddam Hussein have led to the necessity for maintaining economic sanctions against Iraq and the Iraqi leadership.
             Since the end of the Gulf War, the continued U.S. and U.N. sanctions against Iraq have been the center of international controversy. Over the last year, the continued threat of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East has resulted in the call for continued interventions that have also been at the center of debates. The United Nations sanction program against Iraq was designed to impact the economy, thereby limiting the actions of the countries leader and creating an atmosphere to direct change (Gordon 18). While there is considerable research that suggests that the economic impacts of these sanctions have hurt the general population more than the leadership, there is more substantive support for the necessity of continued U.N.-directed sanctions and military support for these sanctions by the United States. Presenting the arguments supporting the continued use of economic sanctions against Iraq is imperative in determining the success of Congressional decision-making capabilities. Public policy must reflect an understanding of the essential elements of any conflict and the reasoning behind the desirability of imposing political and economic restrictions.
             Supporters of continued military presence and the application of sanctions against Saddam Hussein have argued that Iraq continues to be a hostile country that curre...