Sanctions?

I must be gettin' feeble-minded, 'cause I don't understand economic sanctions (imposed on a country with a nasty dictator). I understand that some 85 sanctions were imposed by the U.S. in the period 1996-2001 (and many more, recently, by the U.S. and Canada ... among others). Do they cause political change? Hardly. Did the Iraqis rise up against Saddam Hussein? Hardly. How about the dictator. Is he hurt? One of Hussein's palaces Indeed, innocent people are hurt. Who do they blame? Their evil leader? No, it's the countries that impose the sanctions. But U.S. companies (for example) lost $billions because of the 1996-2001 sanctions, so they were hurt. In 1996, when former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 minutes if she thought the death of half a million children (as a consequence of the Iraq sanctions) was a price worth paying, she replied: "This is a very hard choice but the price, we think, is worth it." So, why are sanctions the first (only?) tool employed? Are they "feel good" policies? Canadians (I'm sure) feel satisfied that something has been done to demonstrate our displeasure ... then we go back to watching the hockey game on TV. Maybe I'm gettin' old, but carrots seem better than sticks.