Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . I believe his reluctance in allowing inspections revolved around his distaste for being dictated to by the world community, NOT because he had anything to hide.

Yea right - and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Again, all SH had to do was comply in the Clinton years and none of this would be happening. Interestingly, Clinton could make deals with other mean people, yet not with SH. I have to wonder why? Yet, you cannot admit that. Its all W's fault instead.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

9/11 caused a different way of thinking about Islamic terrorists and the threats to the US. Sh was an Isamlic terrorist who had used WMD before and had shown aggresssion by invading Kuwait. SH had made it clear he would attack the US if he could and he had attacked an ally of the US and US planes in the no fly zones. So, it was logical to say "hmmmmmm - maybe we ought to see if SH really has those WMD after all because we now know the US can be attacked on its own soil" --- I wish you would explain to me how that is a huge leap of logic or in any way wrong.

Again, if SH had complied for the prior decade, none of this would have happened. Yet, you assign no fault to him. Only W and never Clinton.

SH was never a threat to us! If you want to talk realistic threats to the US, I think Saudi Arabia or Syria are more likely hotbeds of terrorist activity than Iraq, who had been in the past our ally. What about Iran? with its Nuclear capability? I think those countries are better candidates for threat factor personally...

btw, I never "assigned no fault" to SH, obviously he should have complied. But I think his reasons for non-compliance had nothing to do with hidden WMD, and everything to do with not wanting to appear subjugated by a Western world in front of all his Arab/Muslim neighbors.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

SH was never a threat to us! If you want to talk realistic threats to the US, I think Saudi Arabia or Syria are more likely hotbeds of terrorist activity than Iraq, who had been in the past our ally. What about Iran? with its Nuclear capability? I think those countries are better candidates for threat factor personally...

Well, once again, he attacked our ally, openly hated us, failed to comply with the UN, and he used WMD on his own people - to me, and apparently the world, that suggested the world take a closer look at whether he still had those WMD he'd used once before.

It was his unwillingness to prove otherwise that did him in. You play with fire and you are going to get burned.

Also, I agree those countries are huge threats. But, they did not really have the whole UN resoution violation in place, which made it easier to do in Iraq.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yea right - and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Again, all SH had to do was comply in the Clinton years and none of this would be happening. Interestingly, Clinton could make deals with other mean people, yet not with SH. I have to wonder why? Yet, you cannot admit that. Its all W's fault instead.

W didnt start the Iraq mess and I never said he did. That was his FATHER'S doing. Im not sure why you keep wanting to assign some blame to Clinton but no matter what you say, he DIDNT INVADE. He abided by the RULE OF LAW. He was NOT responsible for the Oil-for-food fiasco. and YES I fault Monkey Boy because he announced the Unilateral Strike doctrine when he couldnt get international support. He chose NOT to abide by the rule of law. He had an agenda from the beginning and Ive been proven right over and over.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, once again, he attacked our ally, openly hated us, failed to comply with the UN, and he used WMD on his own people - to me, and apparently the world, that suggested the world take a closer look at whether he still had those WMD he'd used once before.

It was his unwillingness to prove otherwise that did him in. You play with fire and you are going to get burned.

Also, I agree those countries are huge threats. But, they did not really have the whole UN resoution violation in place, which made it easier to do in Iraq.

Kuwait was our ally? interesting. I submit Kuwait was more of a resource supplier that we felt we had to control/protect.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

W didnt start the Iraq mess and I never said he did. That was his FATHER'S doing. Im not sure why you keep wanting to assign some blame to Clinton but no matter what you say, he DIDNT INVADE. He abided by the RULE OF LAW. He was NOT responsible for the Oil-for-food fiasco. and YES I fault Monkey Boy because he announced the Unilateral Strike doctrine when he couldnt get international support. He chose NOT to abide by the rule of law. He had an agenda from the beginning and Ive been proven right over and over.

Ummmm - unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution

And - Clinton defended and advocated the Oil for Food Program and his administration called the suffering under it acceptable.

Nice try though.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Ummmm - unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution

And - Clinton defended and advocated the Oil for Food Program and his administration called the suffering under it acceptable.

Nice try though.

how are no-fly zones connected with the UN?

The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War (um by Bush the FIRST), supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established. U.S. officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organization's rules and regulations belongs to the organization itself, not to each and every individual member of the organization. link

you called it (oil for food) Clinton's program and I said it was NOT. show me where he advocated/defended it.

The "Oil-for-Food" Program.

In order to ease the increasingly worsening humanitarian disasters in Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 986 in April, 1995, which allowed Iraq to export oil worth 2 billion US dollars every six months under the supervision of the UN. This agreement was formally launched in December, 1996. In February, 1998, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1153, expanding Iraq's oil export quota to 5.2 billion US dollars every half year. On December 17, 1999, the Security Council adopted Resolution No.1284 and decided to remove the ceiling put on Iraq's oil export.

the intent was to alleviate the starvation of the people....Even if Clinton DID defend it, whats wrong with that? it was the corrupt handling of this program that exposed it for the disaster it was...and that was NOT Clinton's fault

by the way, here is an excerpt from a fact sheet from the Chinese Ministry on the Iraq issue:

II China's Stand on the Iraq Issue

After the breakout of the Gulf crisis, the Chinese government issued a statement opposing Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, demanding Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Kuwait and maintaining that the disputes between the two countries be resolved through peaceful political means, rather than resorting to force.Based on this stand, china cast affirmative votes on the UN Security Council's resolutions on demanding Iraq's unconditional withdrawal of troops from Kuwait, restoring the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and legal government of Kuwait, and imposing sanctions on Iraq, etc. As to the UN Security Council Resolution 678 which warrants the adoption of "any necessary means", the Chinese government abstained from voting in View of China's constant stand of striving for peaceful solution.

On the Iraq issue China has consistently maintained that UN Security Council's resolutions regarding the Iraq issue should be implemented comprehensively and practically. China also maintains that as a sovereign state, Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected by the international community. Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council's relevant resolutions should be given fair and objective assessment and sanctions against Iraq should be gradually eased until finally removed. China opposes the use of force against Iraq and holds that the Iraq issue be settled through peaceful means. In regard to the question of "no-fly zone", China believes that the practices of the US and the UK to set up "security zone" and "no-fly zone" in Iraqi territory violate the UN Charter and norms of international relations and are in defiance of and trampling on Iraq's sovereignty. China expresses its condemnation towards such practices.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Kuwait was our ally? interesting. I submit Kuwait was more of a resource supplier that we felt we had to control/protect.

It is an ally of the US. But and despite that status, the UN officially and unanimously approved the coalition to expel Iraq from its illegal invasion of Kuwait http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...df?OpenElement

So, what is your point here?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

how are no-fly zones connected with the UN?

The point is the no fly zones were a quasi unilateral effort by France, England, and the US (the leader) -- if you are going to assert that W's similar quasi unilateral actions were bad, then the no fly zones were as well because many died as a reult of them and they could have been avoided had SH complied with the UN resolution he agreed to as a result of his invasion of Kuwait.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you called it (oil for food) Clinton's program and I said it was NOT. show me where he advocated/defended it.

I never said it was Clinton's program If I did, I was mistaken. Also, here is ole Billy boy rather rigoursly advocation it Of course, the Oil for Food program started in 97 - so for about 5 years Clinton just let the kids starve.

Bill Clinton on Sanctions Against Iraq
Amy Goodman interviews Bill Clinton
Democracy Now
November 8, 2000

Below is a transcript of a rare interview of President Clinton by Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio. Following the interview is a brief rebuttal by the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Audio version of the interview available here)


AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, UN figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Overlap) That's not true. That's not true. And that's not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer - $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer - $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He's got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago.

If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it's because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children. We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapon system and his military statement. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shi'ites.

He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo, and if they're hungry or they are not getting medicine, it is his own fault.

AMY GOODMAN: The past two UN heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the US policy ... US/UN policy, genocidal. What is your response to that?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They're wrong! They think that we should reward ... Saddam Hussein says, I'm going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then I will stop starving my kids. And so we are supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. That's just not right! I know they ... you know, the truth is a lot of these people want to start doing business with Saddam Hussein again because they want his money.

And, and, you know, they want his ... the money he earns from oil. But the ... it is an absolute fact that he has more money today than he did before the embargo. So if any child is without food or medicine, it is because he has made a deliberate decision to let them die, to try to build up pressure to lift the embargo so he can spend that money however he wants. He doesn't want to spend that money on his people. He wants to spend that money to become the military dictator of the Middle East again.

Now, if people want to let him do it, that's one thing. But, you know, I have consistently supported changing and relaxing the embargo since I've been President, to make absolutely sure that he had enough money and enough freedom in the use of the money to rebuild the country economically, and to try to feed those children and get them medicine. There were a lot of problems with the embargo in the beginning. There were legitimate criticisms.

But he now has more money with the absolute freedom to spend it on food and medicine and development, and medical care of all kinds, than he did before the embargo was put in. That's the fact. No one can dispute that. So nobody can figure out why there are problems among the children except that he won't spend the money on them.

He spends the money on his own military, on his own crowd and he avoids spending it on a lot of kids who need it so he can blame us, so he can actually get total control over his money, so he can rebuild his apparatus.

GONZALO ABURTO: Mr. President (Overlap)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And, you know, remember, this is the only guy, the only world leader today who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And the American people in my judgement should give him all the money he needs to take care of his kids. But should do everything we can, and even if we are alone, to try to stop him from being in a position of murdering his kids again, and murdering other children in the Middle East. That's what I believe.

_______________________________________________________________



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN EPIC REBUTTAL
Education for Peace in Iraq Center
(Audio version of the interview available here)

In the above interview with Amy Goodman, President Clinton said, "...How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer - $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country..."

This and other remarks were extremely misleading and trivialize a very real crisis in U.S. policy and in Iraq.

First, Saddam did not make $19 billion last year. Iraq's oil sales only reached $11.4 billion.

If we give the President the benefit of the doubt, we can assume he was referring to this year, as opposed to 1999. Focusing exclusively on this year, when the price of oil is at a historic highs, is a convenient way of creating the false impression that Iraq has been making money hand over fist for years. The current price of $33 per barrel has doubled Iraq's purchasing power under the Oil-for-Food program. Thus, Iraq's oil sales will likely exceed $19 billion for 2000.

However, we should not forget that the UN program is dependent on Iraqi oil sales. If prices fall, then Iraq's "oil-for-food" revenues fall. In 1998 when oil prices averaged less than a third of current prices, Iraq could hardly even generate $5 billion in oil sales.

Regarding the President's remark about Saddam getting "cash on the barrel head," he is flat wrong. Baghdad gets nothing. All oil revenues are deposited into a UN bank account in New York City, under the absolute control of the UN 661 Sanctions Committee.

Which brings us to a second point. President Clinton and his administration cannot escape some blame for the thousands of excess deaths of Iraqi children each month. After all, who is running Iraq's economy? Iraq? Think again.

The Iraqi government literally has to submit contracts for what it needs to the 661 Sanctions Committee. Iraq has no representation on this committee. The U.S., which is represented, regularly exercises its veto option. In fact, according to UN diplomats interviewed by the London Guardian, the U.S. representative is responsible for 98% of all vetos and holds placed on contracts. Currently, over $2 billion of contracts are still held up by the UN 661 Sanctions Committee. And so, the President's remarks were incredibly disingenuous. His administration regularly makes decisions that directly affect Iraq's economy and the lives and welfare of 22 million Iraqis.

Of the "$19 billion" Iraq will likely earn this year, the President claimed that Iraq can use the money "exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country." This is also untrue. 30% of this revenue goes toward exorbitant war reparations to needy countries like Kuwait. The UN takes an additional 2% to cover administrative costs. As a result, only 68% of the revenues are potentially available for food, medicine and other goods. As a result of the manifold problems and delays mentioned already, what actually reaches the Iraqi people is a fraction of that. Since 1997, although Iraq has sold over $37 billion of oil, only $9 billion of goods have actually arrived in Iraq! That's an average of less than $3 billion per year. Compare this to 1989, a year before sanctions were imposed, when in that one year Iraq imported $11.1 billion in civilian goods.

More importantly, the entire Oil-for-Food program is fundamentally flawed. It forces Baghdad to purchase all of its goods outside of Iraq, thus doing nothing to rebuild and "develop" its shattered economy and infrastructure. As a result, despite more Oil-for-Food goods entering the country than ever before, massive unemployment and poverty persist. Couple this with the fact that Iraq gets zero investment to repair infrastructure, and you have all the ingredients for an indefinite, manufactured humanitarian crisis. Over 20% of children remain chronically malnourished. And epidemics of water-borne diseases continue.

Blaming it all on Saddam is convenient, especially when speaking to American audiences, but the facts demonstrate otherwise. Facts that are not lost on the Iraqi people, nor the international community. America's ongoing war against the people of Iraq (not Saddam) is doing more to isolate the U.S. in the eyes of the world than any other foreign policy of the Clinton era.

APPENDIX - Below are the latest UN figures to back up the numbers... (click here for the source)

Phase I - VIII Oil barrels (millions) Oil sales (US$) Av.price/barrel($)
Jan - June 97 120 2,150,000,000 17.92
June - Dec 97 127 2,125,000,000 16.73
Jan - June 98 182 2,085,000,000 11.46
June - Dec 98 308 3,027,000,000 09.83
Jan - June 99 360.8 3,947,000,000 10.94
June - Dec 99 389.6 7,402,000,000 19.00
Jan - June 00 343.4 8,285,000,000 24.13
June - Dec 00 316 8,071,000,000
(so far) 25.54
Totals/average 2,146.8 $37,092,000,000 $17.28


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...00/clinton.htm

[irishgrl]

The point is the no fly zones were a quasi unilateral effort by France, England, and the US (the leader) -- if you are going to assert that W's similar quasi unilateral actions were bad, then the no fly zones were as well because many died as a reult of them and they could have been avoided had SH complied with the UN resolution he agreed to as a reult of his invasion of Kuwait.

that is the point of the excerpt I posted. We posted at the same time apparently

I never said it was Clinton's program If I did, I was mistaken.

ok.

Also, here is ole Billy boy rather rigoursly advocation it Of course, the Oil for Food program started in 97 - so for about 5 years Clinton just let the kids starve.

Thats not fair, Clinton wasnt unilaterally responsible for Iraqi children starving--Saddam was!! Shame on you! Why is it always Clinton's fault with you???

As I said, I cant see where advocating for the program is a bad thing? the intent was to alleviate starving its too bad the people entrusted with administering the program were so corrupt

say, I'd love to stay and play but I gotta take my son to school and head off to work

[strandinthewind]

Here is an interesting editorial which appears to be based in fact, though I am not in agreement with a couple of things he says:


Clinton’s Worst Crimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By David L. Harten January 26, 2001

President Clinton was impeached for the wrong crimes. Unlike most Republicans, I never thought Clinton should have been impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Yes, it was immoral, but as my wife likes to say, Americans elected him to be President, not Pope.

At the beginning of the impeachment drive, I agreed with those who argued, "Nobody died because of Clinton’s extramarital affair." Surely, I thought, other Presidents had done much worse actions that had cost people’s lives. However, Clinton’s later acts to distract Americans from his extramarital affair were truly criminal and impeachable, causing thousands, of deaths. I agree with the essay "The Blood on Bill Clinton's Hands," except for one major shortcoming: OSC left out the most serious, and most blatant, of Clinton's war crimes.

The people of Serbia, Kosovo, the Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are not the only or most obvious victims of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The day before the House impeachment vote, Clinton bombed Iraq, delaying the impeachment vote. He continued the bombing throughout all the days of the impeachment vote. Only an hour or two after the House impeachment vote ended, Clinton ended the bombing, saying, "We have achieved our objectives." Of course, because the objective was to delay and distract from the impeachment vote! In all other respects, the bombing hurt U.S. and international interests.

Clinton gave several excuses for bombing Iraq on the eve of the impeachment vote, especially the (bogus, but unquestioned) claim that Iraq had stopped cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors. In reality, Iraq’s cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors had actually been increasing, despite U.S. attempts to provoke a confrontation. However, knowing the impeachment schedule, Clinton had directed UNSCOM chief Richard Butler to write a report that Iraq was not cooperating. Even Scott Ritter, the former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector who quit because he thought the weapons inspectors were not tough enough, said that the White House had been on the phone with UNSCOM "shaping" the report to make sure it would justify bombing Iraq during the impeachment trial.

Clinton actually used the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an excuse for the timing of the bombing. This may have fooled the American media, but didn't fool Muslims, as Clinton continued the bombing even after Ramadan had started (but halted the bombing as soon as the impeachment vote ended).

Sure, Clinton said he had unanimous agreement from his national security advisers to bomb Iraq. So what? No matter what day he asked his national security advisers, they would always agree to bomb Iraq, so why ask on that particular day, a day before the impeachment vote?

Fact: the UNSCOM inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq in December 1998 by Saddam -- President Clinton had UNSCOM chief Richard Butler pull out the UN inspectors so he could bomb. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was understandably angry that Clinton ordered out not just the U.S. inspectors, but all United Nations inspectors (which he had no authority to do).

Fact: ever since Bill Clinton ordered the UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq so he could bomb (the day before the impeachment vote), there have been no UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. So when Clinton said (as soon as the impeachment vote ended), "We have achieved our objectives," was one of those objectives to permanently remove weapons inspectors from Iraq?

Fact: days before the UNSCOM report came out, Clinton was in Israel, already telling Prime Minister Netanyahu that he was expecting a negative UNSCOM report, and that he would soon be bombing Iraq. Clinton knew the contents ahead of time because he was "shaping" that report.

Fact: because of Clinton's December 1998 bombing, Iraq began challenging the U.S. and British "no-fly zones," which they had not been doing before. The risk to U.S. pilots is negligible (no U.S. plane has ever been hit), but it has given the U.S. and Britain an excuse for nearly daily bombing of Iraq (not just radar sites, but cities, towns, shepherd's camps, etc.). Since December 1998, this illegal bombing has killed about two hundred Iraqis, including shepherds with their flocks, families in their houses, and small children, and injured many more. It helps to put faces on the victims. I saw a photo of a cute, smiling little girl named Isra, from the Abu-Khasib neighborhood of Basra, who lost her right arm when a U.S. IGM-130 missile hit her neighborhood at 10:10 AM, January 25, 1999 (for a picture of her, see http://www.vitw.org/airwar.html). This ongoing bombing would not be happening except for Clinton’s attempt to distract from the impeachment vote.

Maybe Americans don't care about the hundreds of Iraqis Clinton killed during the impeachment trial bombings of Iraq, and the scores of Iraqi civilians (and sheep) killed during the almost daily bombings of Iraq in the two years since then. Most Americans, incredibly enough, don't even know we're still at war, that we've been bombing Iraq every other day for the last two years!


Okay, for the sake of argument, say we can forgive Clinton for killing a few hundred or thousand Iraqis with bombs.

Bombs are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent children of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years of the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August 6, 1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States. On May 12, 1996, television’s "Sixty Minutes" interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, "We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"

Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it."

I believe there is a special place in hell reserved for Madeleine Albright.

Yes, even four and a half years ago, 500,000 Iraqi children had already died as a direct result of economic sanctions. Over one million Iraqi civilians have died from the sanctions, mostly children under age five. Those are not Iraqi figures -- those figures come from Unicef, the World Health Organization, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and other international sources. The "oil-for-food" program is so ineffectual that two consecutive UN directors of that program (Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) resigned, out of protest that they were presiding over a humanitarian disaster which can only be called genocide. They were UN Assistant Secretaries General, the highest ranking UN personnel ever to resign for reasons of conscience. Now Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck are touring America and other countries, pleading for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.

Embargoes during peacetime are tough enough, but after a devastating war, they are disastrous. During the Gulf War, U.S. forces deliberately targeted Iraqi water treatment plants, dams, and electric generating facilities (in violation of the Geneva Convention), later admitting they did it in order to cause disease (which was biological warfare by the United States). Iraq has not been allowed to rebuild its water treatment plants since then. Chlorine, and water chlorinators, are prohibited under sanctions. Disease is at epidemic levels, especially among babies and children under five. Nobel Peace prize winners have visited Iraq and described the sanctions as genocide. Iraqi children are dying from starvation, malnutrition, tainted water, lack of basic medicines, and diseases that were once rare but now epidemic.

Iraqis are also suffering horrible birth defects and cancers caused by the 350 tons of depleted uranium (DU) fired into Iraq by U.S. forces during the 1991 Gulf War. DU, used for armor-piercing shells, becomes on impact an dust that drifts on the desert winds until inhaled. DU is not only toxic, but has a radioactive half-life in the billions of years.

U.S. sanctions law is so tough that even shipping food or medicine to Iraq is punishable by a one million dollar fine and 12 years in prison. I have personally tried to send baby formula, but the U.S. post office refuses, due to sanctions. Many items are specifically banned (pencils, books including medical textbooks, chlorine, etc.), while all other items are prohibited without a U.S. Treasury Department license that is almost impossible to obtain.

Fifty-five years ago, people asked, "Where were the good Germans? Why didn't they act to prevent the Holocaust?" History will judge America the same way over the current genocide against Iraqi civilians, the genocide by sanctions. My conscience cannot let me keep silent about this. People are people, and children are children. Even if one hates Muslims (which is hardly a Christian attitude), one million Christians also live in Iraq.

Most major religious groups have condemned the sanctions, including Baptists, Catholics, Churches of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, etc. Leaders of 24 Christian denominations, including those mentioned above, signed a September 27, 1999 letter to President Clinton urging him to end the economic sanctions on Iraq.* Conspicuously absent from the list, unfortunately, is the church that OSC and I belong to, the Mormons (my branch president told me the issue is too political -- as if genocide isn't always political).

Contrary to Clinton Administration propaganda, the small amount of food and medicines that are allowed into Iraq under the "oil-for-food" program (UN Res. 986) are distributed extremely efficiently by the Iraqi government. The U.S. constantly places long holds on shipments of food and medicine, or refusing to allow shipment of essential items altogether. Food and medicines spoil because of lack of refrigeration, or rot in warehouses because the forklifts and trucks to transport them are banned by sanctions. An American who visited an Iraqi hospital that lacked basic medicines and equipment due to sanctions said, "I know what this place is now. It's a death row for children." The doctors try their best, but there is little they can do without medicine, equipment, electricity, or even medical textbooks.

Those who agree with sanctions on Iraq act as if only one person lives there, Saddam Hussein. Yes, Saddam is a cruel dictator who does not allow freedom of speech and has executed hundreds of his political opponents, but that number pales compared to the million or more the Clinton administration has killed through sanctions. Admittedly, Saddam is a brutal and cruel dictator (although he was just as brutal and cruel when the U.S. was arming him and supporting him, under Reagan and Bush, while he gassed his people with U.S. support). But if he is as brutal a dictator as everyone agrees, does it make any sense to starve his people to try to influence him? If (as the Clinton Administration says) Saddam does not care about his people, how will our starving them influence him?

When I spoke about Iraq in my church, tears came to my eyes telling of the father who had to hold his young daughter while her leg was sawed off without anesthesia, because of sanctions. Thinking of my own young son, I also cried describing the mother who, unable to sufficiently breastfeed her baby due to her own malnourishment (the meager food ration under sanctions has no fruits, vegetables, meat, or dairy), gave him sugar water, but the water was polluted. The baby developed diarrhea, and for lack of a five dollar medicine, he died. I know my own young son and unborn baby could never survive in Iraq under UN sanctions, which have been kept in place for over ten years at the insistence of the U.S. We are killing an entire generation, body and soul, destroying a civilization.

Saddam is not the only person who lives in Iraq, any more than Clinton is the only person in America! Over one million innocent Iraqis, mostly children under five, have died miserable deaths simply because Clinton and Albright refuse to admit that sanctions are a mistake, especially sanctions applied after a country's infrastructure has been destroyed through the most destructive bombing in history.

"What about weapons of mass destruction?" some may ask. Ex-weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote in the Boston Globe (3/9/00) that, "...from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed... The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless." The true weapons of mass destruction are the sanctions themselves. It is ironic that sanctions began on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the Hiroshima atomic bombing, because it would be more humane for the U.S. to drop a Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb on Iraq every year than to continue the sanctions. In fact, as an article in the May/June 1999 issue of Foreign Affairs shows, the sanctions against Iraq have killed more people than all "weapons of mass destruction" in history, combined! The same UN resolution used to justify sanctions on Iraq also declared the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. Israel is in blatant violation of that same resolution, yet we do not starve the Israeli people to coerce their leader (nor should we).

There is no doubt that sanctions actually strengthen Saddam Hussein politically. Sanctions strengthen Saddam's grip on Iraq and weaken all opposition, as the struggle to survive, to keep one's children alive, supercedes all thought of rebellion. Sanctions also cause anti-Americanism, as the Arab world knows what we are doing to Iraq, killing over a million innocent people to get revenge on their leader.

The United States used international law to justify the 1991 Gulf War. However, the U.S. and British "no-fly zones" and the continuing bombing of Iraq violate international law. The sanctions themselves violate international law as enshrined in the Genocide Convention (Article II, "…deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring its physical destruction, in whole or in part"), the Geneva Conventions (Geneva Protocol 1, Article 54 outlaws "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare"), the World Declaration on Nutrition ("food must not be used as a tool for political pressure"), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, the incoming Bush administration plans to continue the Clinton administration’s genocidal Iraq policy. Both George W. Bush and his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have said they think the sanctions should actually be tightened.

I knew I had to speak out against sanctions when I read about Bert Sacks, an American Jew. Sacks was returning from a trip to deliver medicine to Iraqis (in violation of U.S. law), when he took a side trip to visit Auschwitz, a place of special importance to him as a Jew. More than one million Jews died at Auschwitz, comparable to the number of Iraqi civilians killed by sanctions. Sacks calls the sanctions an Auschwitz in progress. Like Sacks, I do not want to emulate the "good Germans," who stayed silent during the Holocaust.

In the name of Jesus Christ, who died for all of us, we must not keep silent about the innocent children suffering in Iraq. Use your voices to save some of the children; become "voices in the wilderness," as the Chicago-based anti-sanctions group is named. In the name of God, speak out, everyone who reads these words. To remain silent in the face of genocide committed by one's own government is tantamount to being complicit, a collaborator. In the U.S., unlike Nazi Germany, we can speak out against our government without fear of death. It is our duty to due so, for if we don't, God have mercy on our souls. We cannot wait, for every day, 150 to 200 more children die from sanctions in Iraq.

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printe...1-01-26-1.html

[irishgrl]

Well, that was interesting reading but it was an OPINION piece, not necessarily a fact filled article. The ending I find particularly distasteful because of the juxtaposition of a religious/moral duty within a political (governmental) construct. The man has the right to his opinion however as do we all.