Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on December 05, 2006, 03:08:51 AM
-
Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:
"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"
How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?
I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)
So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this
:(
-
We are in Iraq without UN approval and they are doing everything they can to see that we fail.
A young democracy has emerged in Iraq and when it succeeds the UN will not be able to take any credit.
-
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something.
Why should we have to send our friends and relatives to topple a dictator? Its the responsibility of the Iraqi people to fight their own civil war, to set up their own democracy.
Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them".
-
Originally posted by Angus
Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:
"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"
How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?
I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)
So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this
:(
the world forgets stuff every day.
there are worse sections of violence and corruption in the world than ever existed in iraq. that, it seems to me, is the very crux of the issue. america wishes to place this banner of fairness and equity above these actions when they are not neccessarilly fair from the view points of others.
i dont think that you will find a great many people who are convinced that this action has anything to do with some great moralist endeavor, so we will be lucky if the ansillary effect is in fact a true vision of their own thoughts of democracy.
i believe that it is territorial, and aboriginal. that, in the sense that it is native to the area...so terribly historic. that the events of thousands of years ago are still plagueing the whole of humanity should serve to others as a pointiant indication that it's most base philosophies cause and perpetuate massive amounts of violence.
when the middle east contributes again, it will be a glorious day. if it can get to that point, well, then we may have turned a bad card in pretty well on a bluff.
i ramble.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Did you see the interview with Kofi Annan where he sais this on the question if the situation in Iraq now is worse than in Saddam's time:
"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life. If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, “Am I going to see my child again?”"
How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
So, what's an average Iraqi? Is it a Kurd? Is it a ****a muslim? Is he from Kabala? Is it a gassed person? Is it a toasted person, raped person, tortured person, a person in a mass grave? Is it a starved person (blame it on the UN anyway), or an infant dying of malnutrition and lack of medication while the boss is building palaces and buing gear to build the nuke?
I am not particularly fond of the mess that Iraq is today. There have been many screw-ups. BUT people seem to be forgetting many many things that triggered this up (murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, and at least the full effort in aquiring WMD's etc etc) as well as who is the enemy being fought in Iraq, what is his methology and motive (Terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly)
So, it sometimes just gets on my nerve that the world is forgetting this
:(
I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent.
You shouldn't forget that "the enemy being fought in Iraq" for most Iraqis means the US & UK, and perhaps worse still for your case, the methodology and motive parentheses (terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly) applies equally to that enemy, either directly or through the proxy government. Indeed the US Secretary of State said that the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children was a price that was "worth it" during the US & UK's own little genocide by proxy effort on Iraq via the UNSC.
It's also worth remembering that gassing Kurds, torture, and mass murder were all fine as far as the US & UK were concerned, and they continued to supply Saddam with WMDs throughout his worst excesses, and even covered for him over Hallabjah (where Saddam used US-supplied helicopters). They helped him after his invasion of a neighbouring country, supplying intelligence, WMDs, arms and money. It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah (taking some of Kuwait would have been fine, as the US ambassador to Iraq of the time implied, portraying the US as "taking no position on these affairs" to Saddam). And even after the second Gulf War of '91, the US & UK actively looked the other way when he started killing those in the uprising they had called for, allowing his gunships to enter no-fly zones and so on.
-
Iraq is getting focus while other things go by unnoticed, that is true.
But the focus has shifted from the original into the swamp this is today, that is my point.
Like how life was bad in Berlin in the summer of 1945 compared to 1939, especially to some.
So, the point was lost....somewhere.
And this:
"Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them"."
Yes. There has been a tendency of stopping such a posession though, - one fine point was WW2 in Norway. The thing about Hussein was that he actually did use the strongest stuff from his arsenal, and he was definately on the go to get some stronger.
So, today's status or Hussein? Berlin in ruins 1945 or Nazi conquered Europe?
-
i still refuse to believe that we can hold that moralistic stamp to this action.
it just isnt true. were it so, it would indeed be something special.
this is as much about resources as anything else, (if there is anything else to the equation at all) and it should be viewed in terms of the political leanings of globalization if one is to get a clearer view of the issues at hand.
in so many ways we took the easy road. easy being not having to step above our instinctive protean protectionist knee jerks and into the realm of real movement in the "war on terror" which is a wholly different form of war all together.
iraq is, was, and shall ever be a greivous error. it has turned out post world war 2 idealism and our post korean/vietnamese experiences into useless metaphors for lessons who already know.
it has made us lazy and uninspired.
i just keep thinking that we could have wasted all of that time, those lives and that energy on building a better form of energy, a better infrastructure, a better map to our societal goals...instead we took the easy route, which everyone knows is falicy. the act of staying the same acts like easy, but its the hardest thing to do.
just as it's easy for the iraqis to blame the americans now, when it was really just them being to interested in the easy road. the one where they didnt have to stand up to the beast for themselves.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent.
You shouldn't forget that "the enemy being fought in Iraq" for most Iraqis means the US & UK, and perhaps worse still for your case, the methodology and motive parentheses (terror and fear through mass murder, torture, blackmail and humiliation, targeting civilians mostly) applies equally to that enemy, either directly or through the proxy government. Indeed the US Secretary of State said that the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children was a price that was "worth it" during the US & UK's own little genocide by proxy effort on Iraq via the UNSC.
It's also worth remembering that gassing Kurds, torture, and mass murder were all fine as far as the US & UK were concerned, and they continued to supply Saddam with WMDs throughout his worst excesses, and even covered for him over Hallabjah (where Saddam used US-supplied helicopters). They helped him after his invasion of a neighbouring country, supplying intelligence, WMDs, arms and money. It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah (taking some of Kuwait would have been fine, as the US ambassador to Iraq of the time implied, portraying the US as "taking no position on these affairs" to Saddam). And even after the second Gulf War of '91, the US & UK actively looked the other way when he started killing those in the uprising they had called for, allowing his gunships to enter no-fly zones and so on.
Of course, the UN and the rest of the world never did anything to help anyone in Iraq.
-
Dead:
"the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children ".
Were under the Regime of Saddam.
1. They amount for more than the casualties of all sides after the war.
2. Saddam was still on a shopping spree.
And 3. I don't belive anyone wanted that arse to have a nuke.
-
As for this:
"I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent."
And at what scale and executed mostly by whom?
Oh, the dead are actually mostly victims of Saddams old merry crew and islamic extremists in various groups. Ethnic cleansings? yes, between the groops again, just in penny-packets instead of big-sale.
And the WMD's. Well, it would have been more comfortable for the U.S. to find some, but (thanks god) there weren't any, - YET.
As for the Oil theory, this:
"It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah "
It's actually surprizing how little of the US oil comes from the middle east.
-
Originally posted by Angus
How the heck did that guy get to the top of the UN? He should get the sack right now! He deals with this question in the same way as saying that Hitler surely improved the life for SOME.
He'll be leaving shortly... with a nice life time pension (in the millions)for working at the UN paid for by 'us' the working people...
-
What I find most disturbing about the entire political arena right now, is how everyone (at least it seems that way) has forgotten the history of the middle east.
The problems for the United States in that part of the world started right after WWII when the big oil strike was made. We propped us governements not on their morality but on what they could do for us. In 53 IIRC we propped up the Shah in Iran and that lasted some 25 years there abouts. He was ruthless to his people but we looked the other way because we were getting what we wanted. During this same time we helped the UN with the formation of the state of Israel. Many other little things went on during this time period as well. Hind sight being 20/20 maybe we screwed the pooch on some things back then but the reality is that we are here now.
Skip forward to today and we have the situation in Iraq. Tons of people are calling Iraq a mistake, and that we shouldn't have gone in.
Whatever....doesn't matter now, we are there and the situation has changed. Now what is the current situation?? To many people in the US the only thing they see is this: 3000 dead GI's, 20,000+ wounded GI's, no WMD's, fighting a war for big oil companies, 500,000+ Iraqi civilians killed.
Now while all that may be true, lets look at the bigger picture. Forget about the past and why we are there and who's to blame, doesn't matter, look at the picture right now and what may lay in the future.
Iran, the largest power broker in the area is fueling the insurgents in Iraq. It's a fact, everyone knows it, and they haven't denied it. The only logical reason for them to do this is so that in the future they can take over Iraq. Many people in the US say, who cares?? Well we should. Iran is NO friend of the US. Never will be. It's a fact so deal with it.
Now if the US were to pull out of Iraq several things will happen. Maybe not right away but within 5-10 years. Iran will take over Iraq. The governments will merge into a new government rulled and controlled by the Mullahs in Tehran. That one country would then control almost 1/2 of the oil in the persian gulf and have the largest population and military in the region. Once Iran has consolidated their gains in Iraq they WILL move against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and all the other small gulf states. Who would be able to stop them at that point?
OK if this were to happen what would the rest of the world do? What could we do? Short answer...nothing. With a governmnet such as Irans in control of a huge portion of the worlds oil supply they could cripple any economy on the planet in short order if they so choose to. Now there is the crowd out there that will say, we should invest in allternative forms of energy so we don't have to rely on oil. Nice theory but not very realistic here in the real world.
Now lets take a look at Israel. If everything were to happen like I described above, what is Isreal going to do? Well they will pump up their military more than it already is. They'll have to. Once the US has left Iraq and the rest of the region, they will be alone and isolated. Now if Iran and Iraq merge and then start to take over the other gulf states Israel is going to be looking for enemies everywhere because they will be surrounded. The US will have NO credibility with Israel. It will only take one major attack into Israel, which will happen, and they WILL go nuclear.
If Isreal were to toss a nuke into Iran or Iraq what do you think will happen to us here in the US? We become instant targets for retaliation. Why?? Because we gave Israel the nukes.
Too many people in this country think getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do. Well I have to disagree with those people. These are the same people that are quick to place blame on Bush, like to talk about all the lies that were told, and constantly live in the past. None of that matters anymore. We are there and we need to stay or we will be in a world of hurt in the next 10 years.
You may think I'm crazy and full of BS. That's fine but remember this thread 10 years after we leave Iraq and then tell me if I was wrong.
-
It's the friggin UN fer chrisakes... have you ever seen the countries they have on their human rights council?
Bolton was the best representitive we ever had to the UN... now the democrats will apoint some butt smoooocher to the un.
lazs
-
AFAIK Israel made their own nukes.
Anyway, Hornet, you had some nice points. I don't think the USA packing would be a wise move. The baddies will declare victory. You will have a new regime melting the two former foes together. And you will have dead bodies at an increasing rate.
The screw-up of the western nations is IMHO mostly:
1. Not finishing the business in 1991. ( A very good example is WWI, - after a military victory without conquest, there comes a bad deal which fuels anger and the famous : "We didn't lose the war"
2. Not following up the needed logistics after the military victory in the second war.
I think that it was largely underestimated that Saddam's lads actually knew they would lose a land war (Surprize!) and were more prepared than it was realized to build up a war of resistance. It was underestimated how they would work with the press (look at the casualties, mostly Iraqi people are being blown up by other Iraqis and the USA is the bad guy, - I bet it's on their doctrine to have something on the news EVERY DAY). Remember, early in the war, when Basra was out of water and supplies, civilianz crazy because ships could not dock and unload, - why?- yeah, the Iraqis mined the harbour and it took some 3 days to sweep it!
It's all logistics and a sense of realism IMHO. And it's about time too look at the sides, - the USA is getting crapped over for what those arses are doing. The problem needs to be solved, and it's not through press&political-fed submission.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something.
Why should we have to send our friends and relatives to topple a dictator? Its the responsibility of the Iraqi people to fight their own civil war, to set up their own democracy.
Theres a huge difference between "trying to acquire WMDs" and "having them".
Many said the same about Hitler.
Seems that many Europeans and Asians have forgotten that the messes they made in their lands not so long ago makes Iraq seem like Disneyland in comparison.
-
Look here. Not so known today, but stunning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo%E2%80%93Abyssinian_War
-
But in europe and asia, both were disciplined enough to lay down their arms and build in the new peace. These people are cut of a different cloth. Without lying,cheating, and killing, life is no fun for them.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Dead:
"the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children ".
Were under the Regime of Saddam.
1. They amount for more than the casualties of all sides after the war.
2. Saddam was still on a shopping spree.
And 3. I don't belive anyone wanted that arse to have a nuke.
Well the deaths were directly attributed to the US & UK sanctions -- which IIRC Saddam was opposed to -- and the US Secretary of State didn't take issue with that fact or the numbers. So I'd take that as the US & UK deliberately targeting civilians.
And 1. Depending on which stats you use. The Lancet begs to differ, putting the figure up near 655,000, using fairly standard methodology.
2. And your point is? IIRC ruthless dictators aren't known for their charity work, in fact they can't be ruthless dictators and care about their population much. It's a tradition, or an old charter or something.
Basically you're argument there appears to be:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.
As for this:
"I think his point is that murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing are all up in the new free Iraq. And the WMDs were non-existent."
And at what scale and executed mostly by whom?
Oh, the dead are actually mostly victims of Saddams old merry crew and islamic extremists in various groups. Ethnic cleansings? yes, between the groops again, just in penny-packets instead of big-sale.
And yet - and this is Annan's point - the penny-packet killings added all together are worse and more widespread than under Saddam's big-sale operations.
And the WMD's. Well, it would have been more comfortable for the U.S. to find some, but (thanks god) there weren't any, - YET.
My point being that things that aren't there aren't much of a "trigger". I believe the more common term for them is "excuse" or "lie".
As for the Oil theory, this:
"It was only when he grabbed all of Kuwait - and more importantly all of Kuwait's oil fields - that he became a pariah "
It's actually surprizing how little of the US oil comes from the middle east.
Yes but US Middle Eastern policy is all about energy security at any cost, not just the actual oil. Saddam did represent a threat to energy security with the combined weight of his & Kuwait's oil: for eg he can sell it for $1 a barrel and hurt the Bush Administration's mates in Texas by dropping the price of oil. He also has much more control in OPEC, which controls 41.7% of the world's oil production, fixing the price and production rates.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Of course, the UN and the rest of the world never did anything to help anyone in Iraq.
Which is why the US and the UK shouldn't have a veto in the UN Security Council. Neither should the others: China, Russia & France.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Well the deaths were directly attributed to the US & UK sanctions -- which IIRC Saddam was opposed to -- and the US Secretary of State didn't take issue with that fact or the numbers. So I'd take that as the US & UK deliberately targeting civilians.
It's statements like this that make me think that people just make up their own news now a days. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's statements like this that make me think that people just make up their own news now a days. :rolleyes:
He conveniently forgets the "oil for food" program which because it was sorely abused by Saddam, and even officials in the UN, was responsible for many deaths.
-
Originally posted by lukster
He conveniently forgets the "oil for food" program which because it was sorely abused by Saddam, and even officials in the UN, was responsible for many deaths.
And which country was responsible for introducing that program and prolonging the sanctions?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
And which country was responsible for introducing that program and prolonging the sanctions?
Clinton was responsible for the program but it was the abuse of it that led to deaths. I'll agree that Clinton should have rid the world of Saddam.
-
Yes, - good question.
Anyway dead:
"And yet - and this is Annan's point - the penny-packet killings added all together are worse and more widespread than under Saddam's big-sale operations."
There is a difference. The numbers today are known, the others are not. As more mass graves are discovered, they rise. And to the equation comes this as well, - were the killings at zero when the war started. What would have been the number?
Since there is a claim of 665.000 dead from the beginning of the war, how does it break down? How many are troops and how many killed by the US?
And then to the means of getting a WMD.
"My point being that things that aren't there aren't much of a "trigger". I believe the more common term for them is "excuse" or "lie"."
I belive it's well established that Saddam was trying as hard as he could. He used the resources that othervise could have fed his folks for his military effort. He bought lots of tools, just couldn't get it together and didn't have the time to finish the job. So, it was him first and foremost that starved his own lot. ( It was also him that shopped enough ultrasoniq equipment for all the major hospitals in Europe (used for kidneystones etc but can be used in the nuke process as well), - very expensive, in the middle of starvation.)
So, as an outsider (not US), I see the bad guy, and the USA getting the spam :(
-
Ah yes, the oil for food program. Aided and abetted by UN officials and lots of politicians from other countries, primarily France and Germany. But let's not forget the international Press which also aided and abetted by being a conduit for Iraqi propaganda.
I recall a big expose on the problems caused by the first war and the follow-on sanctions. A big deal was made about a power plant just north of Basra which was, according to the "expose" and Iraqi testimony "bombed back to the stone age". The "expose" included testimony by "experts" that the plant and was completely unreparible.
The Iraqi Propaganda Machine....errr...Internation al Press then proceeded to attribute several thousand child deaths to lack of power from this power plant at hospitals and to keep food chilled. Again, backed up only by Iraqi "witnesses" which of course all worked for the government of Iraq. Who caused all this misery and death? The mean-old Amerikan war-machine.
Oh...I forgot to mention. The day before I saw this broadcast I was flying over southern Iraq at night. Actually, I flew directly over the "stone aged" power plant. Hummmm....as I recall the plant was fully operational and lights covered the entire Basra area. Seemed pretty "non-stone age" to me. Wonder how the press came up with these claims? Wonder how many children actually "died" from lack of electrical power? How many people actually died in Iraq in total due to the sanctions? Were these normal deaths of natural causes? Do the numbers include the Shia Saddam massacred during the post-Desert Storm uprising?
The Japenese are still increasing the supposed death tolls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As soon as a survivor dies of any cancer, even though most are in their 70's to 90's, they get added to the list, this even though the cancer rate in Hiroshima is lower than most of the other industrialized cities in Japan. The same nonsense went on in Iraq for years.
My question is why are so many people willing to attribute evil intentions to the US while at the same time pretending that Saddam wasn't so bad?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Clinton was responsible for the program but it was the abuse of it that led to deaths. I'll agree that Clinton should have rid the world of Saddam.
So the US was responsible for the Oil For Food program with its easily abused regulations as well as the sanctions?
So to summarise so far:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.
4. In order to avoid more unecessary suffering, the US govt introduces a scheme to let Iraq pay for food with oil, so that they can keep the sanctions in place without killing too many more civilians
5. The scheme relies on a corrupt dictatorship being scrupulously honest, because the dictator -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population -- (as per the sanctions idea) can't possibly be a genocidal manic and obviously cares about killing his population.
6. It turns out the corrupt dictatorship is -- shock! horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.
And if that weren't embarrassing enough, when we look at responsibilities:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal concluded that
"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
Also according to Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.
Like I said, Clinton should have taken out Saddam. Better late than never though. Of course it seems that all the US detractors would prefer Saddam in power.
-
Cofee anan is a bad bad man you just dont see it
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So the US was responsible for the Oil For Food program with its easily abused regulations as well as the sanctions?
So to summarise so far:
1. The US had to get rid of Saddam because he's a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population.
2. To do this they used a scheme that hinged on Saddam not being a genocidal manic and caring about killing his population.
3. When it turns out that Saddam is a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population, it's nothing to do with the US govt that their scheme killed 567,000 kids.
4. In order to avoid more unecessary suffering, the US govt introduces a scheme to let Iraq pay for food with oil, so that they can keep the sanctions in place without killing too many more civilians
5. The scheme relies on a corrupt dictatorship being scrupulously honest, because the dictator -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population -- (as per the sanctions idea) can't possibly be a genocidal manic and obviously cares about killing his population.
6. It turns out the corrupt dictatorship is -- shock! horror! -- corrupt. And the dictator is -- shock! horror! -- a genocidal manic who doesn't care about killing his population. Kids keep on dying, but the scheme is now funding Saddam's personal bank account. This still has nothing to do with the US govt.
And if that weren't embarrassing enough, when we look at responsibilities:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal concluded that
Also according to Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.
Don't be a fool dead. Oil for food was proposed by the US but was a UN run program. Also, as I pointed out the supposition that 567,000 Iraqi kids died due to the program is crap and was derived in a similar manner to the current supposed Iraqi deaths since Iraqi Freedom. They basically went around and took a poll asking if someone knew someone who had died. This doesn't take into account multiple people who knew of the same death or an accurate and empirecal analysis of the cause of death. In 2003 about 3000 people died in France due to a heat wave. Assuming each of these people were well known by say, 20 other people and you took a poll that means the reported deaths would be 600,000. Recall also that Saddam's government had control over most of the information reported so they had a very large stake in grossly over reporting the numbers. In addition, how often do you see the international press take information reported at face value just as long as it promotes an anti-American position? If it's anti-American, it'll be on the front page and they won't question it at all....actually this is kinda like most of your posts.
The whole point to the sanctions was to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military because he had 1) invaded a foreign country, 2) lost, and 3) owed war reparations AS DETERMINED BY THE UN. The point to the UN oil for food program was to provide for the Iraqi people. The fact that Saddam used the UN program to divert money back to his military while starving the Iraqi population just goes to show you that good intentions quite often have negative results. While there may have been some US citizens or corporations involved, running of the program, oversight of the program and establishing a corrupt conduit to allow key personel to profit was clearly a UN responsibility. None of the US citizens were in a position to influence the path the UN took regarding Iraq while other specifically named people involved included a member of the British Parliment, officials of the French Foreign Ministry, the French Interior Minister, and at least one Russian politician. This is not including the profitering occuring within the UN itself.
-
Ohh yeah Annan the inker of the Oil for popsickles program, taking out Saddam put a dent in Annans personnal retirement plan so he's obviously going to get even by Bush bashing...
-
This:
"The fact that Saddam used the UN program to divert money back to his military while starving the Iraqi population just goes to show you that good intentions quite often have negative results."
Is exactly what I call a clear view. War is ugly, but don't go colour blind.
(TY Mace)
The bugger had the cash and used it on the military side. Nice for him and everybody's else's fault (especially the USA) that his people were starving in the meantime.