kanelli wrote:viewsoniczee, you are way off base to suggest that it is in the West's best interest that as many Iraqi's die as possible. How does Iraqi's dying or having a civil war get the US its oil? They need a cooperative government and people who are not hateful towards them in order to secure the political conditions for accessing oil for many years to come. The sanctions were not designed to kill off Iraqis - period. Saddam let his people die and did not cooperate with the international community.
Any one of you who thinks that the West is just out to kill as many Muslims as possible is a
ing person with no brain in his/her skull.
This issue has been debated on BBC Hard talk in which 2 of the british Ambassador incharge of Oil for Food programme quit their positions calling it a calculated genocide. Offcourse you are not i touch with reality, let me quote you some....
Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
British MP George Galloway
The oil for food programme was set up in 1996 by Denis Halliday, then the UN¹s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, as an ameliorative measure to counter some of the worst effects of sanctions. In 1998, Halliday resigned in protest at the devastating effects of the revamped programme. "These sanctions," he told journalist John Pilger, "represented ongoing warfare against the people of Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their impact over the years, and the Security Council maintained them, despite its full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq."
(John Pilger, 'Who Are The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, August 22, 2003)
²Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage.²
(Interview with David Edwards, May 2000,
http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/iraqdh.htm)
Hans von Sponeck, Halliday's successor as UN humanitarian coordinator, also resigned. In his letter of resignation, von Sponeck wrote:
"How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" (John Pilger, 'Squeezed to death', The Guardian, March 4, 2000)
In a co-written newspaper article for the Guardian, von Sponeck and Halliday cited a UN report which concluded: "the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad".
(Von Sponeck and Halliday, 'The hostage nation', The Guardian, November 29, 2001)
In similar vein, Channel 4 News declares:
³The sanctions against Iraq were always bitterly criticised for allegedly directing funds to Saddam Hussein rather than the Iraqi people. Now it¹s questionable whether some of the profits also went abroad.² (Channel 4 News At Noon, April 22, 2004)
The bitter criticism of the genocidal costs of sanctions is not allowed to exist.
Compare this with an article in the Daily Telegraph:
³Critics of the programme say it swiftly became a way for Saddam to reward his friends in the West and manipulate the UN.² (ŒRussian and French politicians ³bribed to relax UN sanctions²¹, Philip Delves Broughton, Daily Telegraph, April 22, 2004)
BBC Online covers the same story making the same omissions:
³Recent media reports have accused individuals and companies from more than
40 countries, including a senior UN official, of being involved in corruption and bribery in connection with the oil sales.²
The report quotes von Sponeck:
³Former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck said the allegations needed to be cleared up, but denied that the world body was closely involved in corruption.
"¹The major part of the transactions where graft, misuse [and] kickbacks were involved by-passed United Nations officials,¹ he told the Today programme.² (UN orders Iraq corruption inquiry¹, BBC News, April 22, 2004,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 648409.stm)
Befor you declare anyone witha sick mind should first of all take his/her head out of the mud and face the facts.
The OIL was stolen from iraq and is free for the coalition, as the first offcial statement after the war from Bush was : "OIL FIELDS IN IRAQ ARE SECURED, AND THE US HAS THE RIGHT TO PAY FOR ITS EXPENSES"
No body needs to sign the invoice of the smuggled oil out of iraq!