Iraqi Sanctions - BOZG? - Trying again.

[Anarcho]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=12&topic=233 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=12&topic=233)

... states my belief that too many folks that are anti-capitalism/anti-US are too willing to claim friendship with Iraq.

I stated facts taken from the UN website that hopefully shed some light on my theory that Saddam is making the sanctions worse than they are on purpose, as it gives him good press.

I think this may be one of the discussions that got me kicked to this section, but I haven't gotten any response.

So I thought I'd try again. Anyone?

[TC of Glockenspiel]

I agree with you Anarcho in that the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily one's friend, and I hate the bleating that can occur regarding stances taken up by people.

However, certain points must be taken notice of. 1) In fact, there have been thus far 4 million deaths in Iraq, one million of which were children under the age of five. 2) Iraq's share of the world oil exports is not as large and substantial as one may think. Saudi Arabia and Iran are more than able to make up for Iraq (as we saw when Hussein boycotted Israel's invasion of Palestinian territory by not exporting oil to countries supporting Israel). 3) One cannot really believe that a country can live with donations and support from the UN.

Then again, does the "publicity" that Iraq gets aid his country? Saddam Hussein is not a stupid man. Pulling wrong decisions? That's another discussion, but not stupid. Same goes for Hitler, not stupid (if we don't refer to his choice of which nation to attack in the mid-1940's). Has the 'international outcry' done anything that would allow the Iraqi people to progress? No. Saddam is obviously aware of this and knows very well that the refusal of weapons inspectors is not helping him. What it is doing is telling the world that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that UN weapons inspectors have no right to enter Iraqi soil without due cause. Although I don't necessarily agree with certain tactics, I must say that I see the Iraqi point of view; the US cannot always have what it wants.

[Capitalist Imperial]

For once we agree, the sanctions vs iraq allow for clothing, feeding of the people, hussein is diverting those resources away from those in need and using them to mitigate the exisiting sactions. The US/UN embargos are not hurting the iraqi people, saddam hussein is, surprise,surprise.

[BOZG]

Yes, Hussein definately does manipulate the embargo to make it sound much worse but hundreds of thousands (at least) have died directly because of UN/U$ sanctions.

As you received this information from the UN website, it is biased. It would be better to receive information from a group which plays no part in the situation.

[Anarcho]

Again, I have to ask why he doesn't take the food from his well fed government and soldiers, and feed his people?

But I will also indeavor to find a more acceptable source for information.

[Astrofro]

Can you please find an unbiased source for us? or less so than the UN? By the way, the US has in no way starved his people. We leave him to do that. Ever seen some of his palaces?

[Anonymous]

the main problem is that the world is full of people that dont follow their own doctrines! they follow the doctrines of the enemys of their enemys!! is like joining a satanic church just to protest against the cristian church! If they just attacked capitalism, religion etc with the truth, they would soon disepear! Truth is stronger than everything, and America usualy hides the truth or manipulates it, like on 11 september, like in the hispano-american war like in Pearl Harbour! If people just opened their eyes, America wouldt be such an evil empire! K´mon people open your eyes, American Goverment knew about the 11 september long ago!, like in pearl harbour they knew that japan was going to attack perl harbour aND THEY DID NOTHING!, and the coups in south america? who puted Saddam in the power?? the CIA! who trained bin laden? CIA! Who killed KIennedy? CIA and why? because he was going to end the american petroil elite!!!! see it isnt that hard!! just find the truth!! remember: You can lie to some people all the time, you can lie to all the people some time but you cant lie to all the people all the time! Find the truth an tell it to everyone, let the truth make the revolution!!!!!!!

Love & ®evolution!

[Anarcho]

Sadly, while there may be a kernel of truth in some conspiracy theories, most of them are bullocks. I don't think the US knew ahead of time exactly what the Sept. 11 attacks were going to be, and I don't think anybody (save them that did it) really know who was behind the Kennedy assasinations.

Still looking around, but I'm at work. May take a bit.

[BOZG]

Even if Hussein was to take some of his food and money that is given to the elite, it still would not be enough to feed the starving millions. I suppose the trade embargo on Cuba was Castro's fault and that he starved his own people for a time.

[Anarcho]

That depends... did Castro build lavish palaces all over his country? Did he keep a fleet of luxury automobiles on hand, complete with caretakers?

Did he squander his money on an oversized military that had no real purpose?

Saddam has done all these things. The sanctions are bad, yes, and the US is the primary motivator for them, yes again, but Saddam could lessen that burden by putting his people before his 'cult of personality'.

While children are starving he's having murals painted with his face on them. Sad.

[Anarcho]

Powel would like to change the sanctions as they stand.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman (Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release February 27, 2001

Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell Briefing for the Press Aboard
Aircraft En Route Brussels

February 26, 2001

SECRETARY POWELL: We've completed the Middle East portion of the trip, and I'm very pleased with it. I continued to have good conversations today with colleagues in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and what I believe was a very, very fine meeting with President Asad in Damascus. We spoke for an hour. It was frank, direct, open, candid. He sounded very much engaged, and we concentrated principally on the Middle East peace process. I reviewed for him the situation as I saw it, and you all have heard me speak about this.

We also talked a bit about the Syrian track. In our conversation we both, I think I can fairly say, came to the conclusion that there is no reason for the two tracks to not be tracks, where nothing happens until something else happens. It's possible if we get further down the road and get negotiations going again, they might go in parallel. It does not mean that they both go at the same rate and both reach the same destination at the same time. But if we can get the situation stabilized, why not start both sets going again? Of course, this is for the parties to decide, not for me; but it was a suggestion I made, and I was pleased that the President seemed to respond favorably to it.

But understand what I said now. Not that there are parallel railroad tracks reaching the same station at the same time, but it need not be that nothing happens until one or the other is done. That is the point I was making.

We talked quite extensively about Iraq. As you know, Syria has had a position for some time that said we should modify the sanctions regime; they've been on the record for some time now. We talked about that, and I told him that we were exploring ideas along those lines, and I've been talking to everybody in the region about that and will be spending more time talking to some of my colleagues in Brussels about it, and then would report to the President. In my discussion with President Bashar (Asad), I made the point, as I did yesterday with King Abdullah and with the Saudis today, that as part of such a strategy if we go forward, you really have to do something about the front-line states and Hussein's ability to ship things out that might not be under UN control.

Candidly, we then discussed the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline. Of course, as you know, the Syrians want to stay within the context of the UN Security Council resolutions to play their role and they have been on record with that. The President said to me in response to my query that it is their plan to bring that pipeline, and what is going through that pipeline and the revenues generated in that pipeline, to be under the same kind of control as other elements of the sanctions regime. I found that to be a very important statement on his part, and we have passed that information to President Bush; he has been informed of that, and he also was pleased.

So I'm very satisfied with the trip from that standpoint in that I'm getting a consistent message as I go through the region. We haven't decided a thing; there are still a lot of things we have to look at. We have to talk to people who will see this as "Aha; if you move in this direction, aren't you giving up something, aren't you letting him loose?" The message I've consistently heard is that overdoing it with the sanctions gives him a tool that he is using against us and really is not weakening him. It's not that he gets any more money; it's that he now can use more of that money to benefit more of his people under UN control. So I still view that if we move in this direction, as not weakening but in effect restructuring them in a more sensible way that keeps us pointed at the target I've been talking about for the past several days and several weeks: weapons of mass destruction, not the Iraqi people.

That was a message that I found resonated in the region and it's the message I will be carrying back to Washington to discuss with the President, Dr. Rice, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others. I'm sure I'll have conversations with people on the Hill about it. So this is part of the instruction I had from President Bush: go out and consult, come back and tell me what you found out.

Q: You have described to us how you would modify the sanctions so that they would not hurt the Iraqi people as much, but we haven't understood how you would modify the sanctions to tighten the controls over imports of stuff that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. How will you tighten those?

SECRETARY POWELL: As part of this, as we move forward, we get agreement and we make a judgment and frankly, if we also get the support of the Arab League when they meet in two weeks' time -- there is a lot more work to be done, and I have people working on this.

As to how would we modify the list, what additional controls should we put on the money in the escrow account, how should it be monitored in a more effective way, what more work should we do with the front-line states, I think it gives us a stronger position to go to nations that might still be tempted to send in prohibited weapons or prohibited materials when we can give them a unified position that says look, we have all decided this is not the thing to do and there will be consequences of such behavior.

Right now the consequences have less currency because things are in a state of, I must say, disarray. I think you all would agree with that. I've been reading editorial after editorial. I arrived on the 21st of January to discover cables coming at me from our Ambassadors saying we have to do something. This is that something if we move in that direction. What it does, I think, is gives a much stronger position with which to deal with the financial controls, deal with the leakage, and deal with the question you raised about people who have chosen to put in bad things. But there's a lot more work to be done at a very detailed level.

I also want to report all this to Secretary General Annan so that he can take it to the Perm 5 and others. Maybe I'll have to go back to New York and meet with them at some point