posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
Back on topic...
It's true that the embargo did result in deaths, no argument there.
The embargo was not implemented solely by the US and UK, as some have implied, but rather by the UN.
Of course, the UN makes the embargo, but who were virtually the only ones to actually enforce it? That's right, the US and the UK did the UN's
dirty work because, as usual, if we didn't then it wouldn't have been done. Yet another proof that the UN cannot enforce it's will (and I do use
that term loosely when referring to the UN).
So, while the US and UK were trying to enforce the UN's embargo, the UN itself was busily scamming the entire process for their own profit, as
were many UN member nations who allegedly "supported" this embargo. This, again is undeniable fact. "oil for food" was actually "oil and big
phat bribes for military tech, political pull, and a little bit of food".
How did this happen? Deals made by Saddam and corrupt UN officials, with support by other states. It would seem that when other UN member states
choose to disregard their commitments to the UN, it's no big deal.
Literally days before the war began, Russian and French contractors(among others) were busily preparing Iraqi defenses with tech forbidden by the
embargo. This was nothing new, such activity had been going on for some time. Everyone's conveniently forgotten all of this in rabid persecution of
the coalition for their perceived "illegal invasion". (I've often wondered about this term--can anyone really claim to have knowledge of a
"legal" invasion anywhere in history?)
Had the embargo been maintained as envisioned, there would not have been deaths as a result. This was not an embargo prohibiting wonder-bread and
asprin, but prohibiting weapons of war and the technology to make such. Provisions were made for ample trade of both food and medicine precisely so
that starvation and disease would not occurr. Rather than doing such, Saddam and others decided to pursue military ends instead, bringing famine to
the Iraqi people. It wasn't that there wasn't food or medicine coming into the country, rather that what was was given mainly to the military and
This was not by mistake--Saddam knew what the result would be. While keeping his chosen factions alive and well, aid was denied to those who weren't
(chosen). This served many purposes. A weakening of any opposition was achieved, while strength of the regime was maintained. Public opinion was
further swayed to Saddam's side by his government's stance that it was the embargo's fault that people had no food.
Ultimately, my point is that it was not the embargo itself that caused so many deaths, but the unchecked corruption of the UN and member states,
combined with Saddam's political savvy and total disregard for the well being of large segments of Iraq's population. By definition, Saddam's
handling of the situation was a textbook success when viewed in terms of what he wanted to accomplish. Pol Pot would've been proud.
I don't disagree that the war was better for Iraqis than continued conditions as they were. Neither is good, but (much like the upcoming US
election) it's a matter of the lesser of evils.
It seems that many people in this thread (and this board in general) want to villify the US (and, to slightly lesser extent, UK) as being the "root
of all evil" in the world, without looking at the facts of any given situation. If the facts are viewed in actual conditions, you can clearly see
that it wasn't the embargo itself that resulted in so many pointless deaths, but the corrupt administration of it.