from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm 5. Oil-for-Food Sanctions advocates proposed Oil-for-Food under Resolution 986 as a temporary solution to the humanitarian crisis. Oil-for-Food materially improved conditions in Iraq in contrast to the early days of the sanctions. But Oil-for-Food failed to resolve the humanitarian crisis, much less provide a long-term solution for Iraq. Punitive deductions for war reparations weaken the program as do unacceptable delays in delivery (less than 60%f of all items ordered from oil sales since December 1996 have actually arrived in Iraq). Politically motivated blocks and “holds,” imposed almost entirely by the United States, have plagued the program as well. Consequently, there has been little repair and renewal of Iraq’s badly-deteriorated infrastructure, including water treatment, electricity, and public health. Oil-for-Food has failed to improve sufficiently the nutrition and health of Iraqi citizens, who continue to suffer from conditions drastically worse than the pre-sanctions period. Less than $200 per year per capita has arrived in Iraq under the program. Studies have amply documented a substantial rise in mortality of children, five years of age and under and credible estimates suggest that at least 400,000 of these young children have died due to the sanctions. Various reforms, including Resolution 1284 have proven ineffective in addressing these problems.
The case against war is falling apart. Unless you think the US is imperialist or something. Nobody has mentioned unintended consequences. That would be the best argument against war.
That is SO ironic, No Worries I can use the exact site you just referenced to refute this ridiculous claim you made earlier today http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq0223.htm who woulda thunk it?
On the other hand... http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99k.htm Since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has directed and sustained a multi-billion dollar palace construction program while pleading that the UN sanctions keep him too poor to feed and provide health care for his people. While he keeps Iraq's hospital shelves bare and shows them to journalists, Saddam restricts access to the new and ornate palaces to himself and his chosen admirers of any given moment. Moreover, Saddam fits out these monuments with the finest foreign materials — from golden plumbing to the finest European marble and crystal chandeliers — smuggled in despite the embargo that Baghdad propaganda falsely claims blocks the import of food and medicine. Saddam Hussein pays for these palaces with that part of the Iraqi national wealth that he has managed to keep under his control and out of the UN's mandatory oil-for-food program. Through that program, the UN controls how Iraqi oil revenues are spent and compels the regime to invest Iraq's oil wealth for the benefit of its people. But every day that he remains in power, Saddam lets his favored supporters steal hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from the Iraqi people to enrich themselves, in direct violation of UN resolutions. Most Iraqis and the few foreign visitors to Iraq only get to see the outer walls of Saddam's monuments to his glory. This report provides satellite images that allow Iraqis and the rest of the world to see better how Saddam Hussein spends some of the money that he is able to steal from the national wealth of the Iraqi people. Photographic evidence confirms that Saddam Hussein and his regime have sustained a non-stop program of palace building since 1991. Saddam has been spending billions of dollars on the man-made lakes, waterfalls, marble, and other luxuries that make up his palaces and those of his supporters. At the same time, Saddam parades well-intentioned foreigners to gawk at the sick and hungry of Iraq, as he pleads that UN sanctions prevent him from buying or importing his people's most basic needs. ...Since repairing the Basrah refinery, Iraq has steadily increased the amount of oil illegally exported via the Persian Gulf. Illicit oil exports averaged about 50,000 b/d for much of 1998, until they ended with the attack on the Basrah refinery in December of 1998. Iraq resumed exports in August of 1999. Smuggling reached 70,000 b/d in December and averaged about 100,000 b/d in January 2000. We estimate that Baghdad has earned more than $25 million in January alone. There is no evidence that any of this money has been spent to improve the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people.
I totally see what violating a treaty has to do with invading Iraq. You break the treaty....the war is back on. Hell, Saddam signed it. However...I'm still trying to figure out what 9-11 and a bunch of psycho Saudis has to do with invading Iraq. I'm going to side with the CIA on this one until I hear otherwise. Really hoping the speech tonight clears that up.
That is a good point X-PAC, but I don't think that means full scale invasion. The U.S. policy towards Fidel Castro has been Regime change for decades now, but we aren't preparing to invade Cuba. The goals are definitely worthwhile, and I don't begrudge Bush or anyone else for having those goals. I may not even begrudge a military invasion, but I would without evidence of a real and immediate threat to the U.S. or a first strike by the Iraqis etc.
By not sharing intell, I meant not sharing intell like where the WMD are located. By Ritter's accounts, the US would not give up its WMD intell or provide spy satellite photos and analysis. This jives with the fact that the US was pursuing a regime change and not disarmament. Placing CIA operatives on the inspection teams to spy on Iraq for the USA is not the US cooperation with the UN that one would expect. No doubt the intell gathered by the CIA operatives for the US provided useful informatiion for Operation Desert Storm. BTW, whatever usefull WMD intell the US had before the Gulf War and Opeation Desert Fox has been used by the military. One can assume that all pre1988 WMD, that we knew enough about to blow up, has been targeted and destroyed.
But out treaties with our allies are also mutual protection agreements. the import of this is that if somebody is a real threat to our treaty partners, then we should act as though it were a direct threat to us. I'm pretty sure that our European allies and Isreal would be in danger should Saddam get a wild hair about chemical weapons.
