posted June 15, 2005 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

It's also true the US was lax in permitting more oil to be sold under the program and at higher than market prices...within limits. Such sales were supposed to benefit Iraqi citizens..but Saddam misused the money, cut deals for substandard foods and medicines and pocketed kickbacks from suppliers without passing the oil money through to citizens in the form of food and other essential supplies.

---

"In May 1991, under the first Bush Administration, as Iraq’s neighbors began to complain about the effects of the sanctions on their countries, the United States quietly decided to grant an informal “exemption” to Jordan, permitting it to import Iraqi oil in clear violation of the sanctions. This convenient arrangement continued for the next decade, with the blessing of three U.S. administrations. According to the Duelfer report, Iraq’s income from these arrangements with Jordan totaled some $4.4 billion. Turkey, like Jordan, complained that the sanctions were harming its economy. And Turkey, like Jordan, was a crucial ally the United States needed to appease. The result was a decision by the United States “to close our eyes to leakage via Turkey,” according to former Assistant Secretary of State Robert Pelletreau. By 1997 the volume of oil being smuggled from Iraq to Turkey had grown to 1,000 trucks per day, transporting millions of tons of oil per year . . . all while U.S. planes enforcing no-fly zones flew overhead. Iraq’s illicit income from Turkey, according to the Duelfer report, came to $710 million.

"How Iraq sold its oil was also under scrutiny, and the United States did act on what it perceived to be skimming by Hussein in these deals. The solution it enacted, however, succeeded in almost bankrupting the entire Oil for Food Programme within months.

"In December 2000 the “oil overseers”—oil specialists appointed by the secretary general to monitor Iraq’s oil sales—reported to the 661 Committee that Iraq was setting its prices unusually low, and that this left room for cash payments under the table. Since the terms of the Oil for Food Programme required every single sale of Iraqi oil to be approved by every member of the Security Council, the United States and Britain came up with a novel solution. Instead of approving prices at the beginning of each sales period (usually a month), in accordance with normal commercial practices, the two allies would simply withhold their approval until after the oil was sold—creating a bizarre scenario in which buyers had to sign contracts without knowing what the price would be. The rationale was that this allowed the members of the 661 Committee to then set the price at the fair market value—as they determined it to be, weeks later. The oil overseers told the committee that this might stop the kickbacks but that it would be absolutely disastrous for the funding of the humanitarian goods. They offered a variety of other solutions, but the United States and Britain insisted on this one. And the results were in fact disastrous. Oil sales collapsed by 40 percent, and along with them the funds for critical humanitarian imports. On February 26, 2002, the director of the Oil for Food Programme informed the Security Council that $7 billion in urgent humanitarian contracts could not be paid for, because of the shortfall from the new pricing policies. The Oil for Food Programme, the lifeline for the entire Iraqi population, was badly compromised—not because Saddam Hussein had skimmed 5 percent or 10 percent but because the United States and Britain had adopted a punitive measure so extreme that it nearly bankrupted the entire program."

Where does it say anywhere that money Saddam may have skimmed off the top was supposed to go to Iraqi citizens. Remember, Saddam isn't all that interested in the welfare of the citizens of Iraq. If he was making money under the table it was likely for himself, and not for the general population.

quote:

---

You aren't getting it both ways with me...talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. The US had a liberal policy in regard to oil sales, believing it benefited Iraqi citizens, so the US was not repressing Iraqi citizens. Further, it was Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein alone who repressed Iraqi citizens.

---

You're right, I'm only having it one way with you: the right and truthful way. These lines are your own opinion, and are unsupported by any facts. Good try, though.

quote:

---

You have made the most extreme and lying allegations against the United States. Allegations that could have come straight from the mouth of Saddam Hussien...and did. What you've said about the US is found on every radical leftist website on the Internet but are out of touch with reality.

---

This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement you've ever made. Not only is this a completely bogus statement, but my argument even finds support from the office of Dick Lugar.

Also, what leftist sites are you referring to? I haven't been to any in the course of this conversation, so once again the burden is on you to prove the validity of your statements.

quote:

---

I had you pegged exactly in the right pew.

---

Your own opinion again.

quote:

---

When Iraq is discussed, it's the US you accuse as the repressor, not Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad.
When idealism is discussed you champion communism and communists.

---

Trying to fall back on an old argument to resolve a different one? Let me once again define an idealist for you:

1. One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.
2. One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary.
3. An artist or writer whose work is imbued with idealism.
4. An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.

An idealist is an idealist. A communist is an idealist, and a capitalist is an idealist. The list goes on and on: Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Budists, Christians, Islamists, anarchists, socialists, etc. We are ALL idealists. You trying to say it isn't so, doesn't make you correct.

quote:

---

Ideologically, you are not an American. You're one of the accidental Americans I mentioned before. You do not share a belief in American ideals and from what I've seen of your comments, you accuse America of being the problem in the world.
Your attack on America has been relentless and everything you've said is the far radical leftist viewpoint.

---

Once again you prove your ignorance by trying to state as fact what is indeed your own opinion. This tactic of attempting to smear my name by trying to link me with people you don't agree with is completely transparent. Any fool can see the facts at play here, and you're still the only one making such outrageous accusations.

Ideologically, you can't fathom what an American is if you can't respect commentary on the facts at hand. The people who shaped this nation did not do so in hopes that people like yourself would distort the truth in order to make America look better in it's own eyes.

quote:

---

You certainly are no liberal. When reading the words of a true liberal, you dismiss him as a conservative. That's how far to the radical left you really are. There is nothing mainstream Americana in anything you've said. I know and admire true liberals. We share common interests, we love America and America's ideals. Where we differ is how to get there, policy wise. I see none of that in you. In fact, everything you've said is a direct attack on America.

---

Once again (Why am I constantly having to say, "Once again," with you?), you're using your opinion as your soap box. I'm beginning to see that this is forever your pathway out of trouble. You can't make a coherant argument, so you decide to slander instead. It's a good thing everyone sees through your BS.

quote:

---

For me, I don't give a damn where you are politically. There are a lot of viewpoints among Americans. I do however respond strongly to those who attack America and more so to those who live here, make their living here and side with those attempting to tear America down. That's you Acoustic and those who are ideologically something other than Americans and can't find one good thing to say about their country. I know a lot of people Acoustic, conservatives, liberals and independents and what you've said here would make them want to throw up. I don't know anyone who wouldn't bid you a farewell and good riddance if you decided to leave our fair shores.

---

More rubbish? You do seem to care where I am politically, as you keep trying to define that space in a manner that makes you feel good about yourself.

Petron and I have both provided words out of other people's mouths to make points you refuse to take or refute with evidence to the contrary. That's all I need to say.

posted June 15, 2005 10:07 PM              

Bush has done so for the same reasons the next dem pres will be doing so---

all about the politics. Both sides are equaly guilty of the same fake BS .

As far as a Florida or NY judge goes,,, if enough americans finally get the nerve to be like our founding Fathers and Patrioticly put there lives on the line to have another revolution------

Lets take out all these judges along with the federal government in power.[ great, now Im realy gona be red flaged!!!]

posted June 16, 2005 05:47 PM            

Now Acoustic, you've attempted to have it both ways in this discussion. You've accused the US of oppressing Iraqi citizens with sanctions, when it was the UN which imposed sanctions against Iraq. You allege sanctions had the effect of starving Iraqi citizens and denying them essentials for their survival...including water treatment chemicals...chlorine, which is mentioned in one of the articles below.

The fact Saddam was selling oil smuggled out of Iraq through tankers to Jordan and through a pipeline directly into Syria meant there was money to buy food and essentials for Iraqi citizens...if Saddam hadn't built palaces and stashed the cash in foreign bank accounts. Later, Saddam refused the oil for food program and let his citizens starve. Eventually, 5 years later, he accepted.

This is where your argument of US repression falls apart. It was posted that US forces looked the other way while Saddam smuggled oil out of Iraq. Let's accept that as true for the sake of argument. That meant Saddam should have had even more money to purchase food and essentials for Iraqi citizens. This is where you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It can't be both ways. Either the US kept sanction embargoes so tight there wasn't enough money to keep Iraqi citizens fed from the oil Saddam could legally export or the US looked the other way while Saddam smuggled oil out of Iraq generating far more cash with which to feed and provide for Iraqi citizens.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but in no case was it the US who repressed Iraqi citizens, it was Saddam himself.

I've also noticed you haven't had much to say about Saddam's role as the repressor, oppressor of Iraqi citizens. Why is that Acoustic? Why does the butcher of Baghdad get a pass? He is a socialist which seems to overcome all in the eyes of the radical left.

As for me slandering you, that's not necessary. Your own statements do that job very well.

Communist are not idealists. Capitalists are not idealists. Communists are murderous thugs and Capitalists are driven by a profit motive..restrained by a nation of laws. Communists are not restrained by law, they seek to become the law and anything they say becomes the law and if you don't obey them...they simply kill you.

Now, all those who opposed sanctions against Iraq should be happy. Sanctions have been lifted and Iraq is free to sell as much oil on the world market as can be produced...not that Saddam wasn't selling every drop Iraq could produce all along. The difference is, the money from the sale of oil is now going to the Iraqi people instead of into Saddam's pockets and palaces.

posted June 16, 2005 05:49 PM            

I don't like the idea because the wrong people always wind up in power after a revolution.

In our system of laws, there is a remedy for every grievance.

If against a Congressperson or Senator, it's an election and also against the entire Congress which every 6 years is completed elected.

If against the President, it's through impeachment...by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.

If against Federal Judges, it's through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

If against the Constitution, it's by Amendment.

posted June 16, 2005 05:50 PM            

From May 6 to May 13, a hundred religious leaders, medical professionals and anti-war activists will carry out the biggest U.S.-based challenge to the U.S.-led embargo yet. They will bring life-saving medical supplies to Iraq, defying the sanctions.

posted June 16, 2005 05:51 PM            

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is struggling to regain the offensive in its battle with Iraq. Worldwide opposition to its war plans and economic strangulation has temporarily taken the initiative away from Washington. Otherwise, Washington will insist that there be no "relief in sight for Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people, as far as the sanctions are concerned." http://www.workers.org/ww/1998/iraq0326.php

posted June 16, 2005 05:52 PM            

Becker was referring to the video documentary, "Genocide by Sanctions," which premiered at the meeting. Filmed partially in Iraq and edited by Gloria La Riva, it covers a trip there in November 1997 made by IAC founder and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

"One and a half million people killed outright. Ten to 15 million more who suffer every day from the effects of the sanctions."The life expectancy has been brought down 40 years in Iraq."

posted June 16, 2005 05:53 PM            

While the latest UN decisions allow Baghdad to sell $2 billion in oil each six months, the situation for that country's children is still horrible.On Jan. 2, an Iraqi Health Ministry statement said that 729,000 children have died since 1991 because of the sanctions. In the last year alone, 134,000 children died from malnutrition, diabetes, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. These conditions were only minor problems in Iraq before the war.

posted June 16, 2005 05:57 PM            

I'd rather kiss a pig than cozy up to the Nazis.

How is it you don't know the Nazis/Hitler were Socialists? How does anyone get through school without picking that up in history classes?

The only disagreement Stalin and Hitler had was who was going to be top thug. Stalin planned to take over by subversion of governments and Hitler by direct military conquest. Hitler killed communists because they were Stalin's communists and attempted to subvert the German and later Nazi government.

The name of Hitler's party was The National Socialist German Workers Party.

posted June 16, 2005 07:22 PM              

You are so full of $h*t Jwhop. You say that yet you worship a president who's family has a history of supporting them.

You can't even say anything now old man.

posted June 16, 2005 07:55 PM            

Didn't I just say this:

quote:

---

Where does it say anywhere that money Saddam may have skimmed off the top was supposed to go to Iraqi citizens. Remember, Saddam isn't all that interested in the welfare of the citizens of Iraq. If he was making money under the table it was likely for himself, and not for the general population.

---

I've never denied that Saddam wasn't good to his nation. That's your own thought about my mindset. You project what you want to see.

quote:

---

This is where your argument of US repression falls apart. It was posted that US forces looked the other way while Saddam smuggled oil out of Iraq. Let's accept that as true for the sake of argument. That meant Saddam should have had even more money to purchase food and essentials for Iraqi citizens. This is where you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It can't be both ways. Either the US kept sanction embargoes so tight there wasn't enough money to keep Iraqi citizens fed from the oil Saddam could legally export or the US looked the other way while Saddam smuggled oil out of Iraq generating far more cash with which to feed and provide for Iraqi citizens.

The truth may lie somewhere in between but in no case was it the US who repressed Iraqi citizens, it was Saddam himself.

---

Ok, there was the illegal oil sales that Saddam was allowed to profit from. That is true. It's also true that Saddam kept that money, and didn't spend it on humanitarian relief himself.

Then there's the legal sale of oil through the Oil for Food programs. Only proceeds from the (oil) sales through the Oil for Food program are said to have been used towards humanitarian aid. When those contract requests came in for humanitarian aid items, they were scrutinized by the U.S. and U.K. in particular for weapons applications and many were denied or postponed due to security concerns. Many of the items necessary for infrastructure, for the public's health, were denied by the U.S. and U.K. for security reasons. So, the U.S. was being very diligent about playing it safe at the expense of Iraqi health.

So Saddam wasn't helping the people, and the U.S. was only marginally trying to help the people (and by blocking humanitarian supplies were indeed adding to the suffering of the people). This is the consistent history.

posted June 16, 2005 10:28 PM            

The US did not block food, medicine or other essential supplies for Iraqi citizens.

If anything, the US was lax in permitting more oil to be shipped from Iraq than called for by the oil for food program the presumption being it would benefit Iraqi citizens. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again Acoustic. If oil sales were not going to benefit Iraqi citizens, why permit any at all? Your logic is faulty.

There was no way to supply aid directly to Iraqi citizens with Saddam in power. Yours is an asinine argument, so unreasonable as to be absurd.
According to your thinking, nothing should have been done about Saddam Hussein at all...since anything that was done would also affect Iraqi citizens. Well, Saddam killed about a million of those Iraqi citizens and there were recent free elections with a turnout rate of about 70% and Saddam is heading for a firing squad or beheading...whatever the Iraqi court decides.

Yours is the very same argument as the communists at Workers World Party Acoustic....leave Saddam alone. I don't think Saddam not being good for his nation quite covers the reality of his regime, do you? It that the strongest case you can make against Saddam Hussein? Probably straining yourself to say that much.

The proof is that oil was permitted to be sold, that essential supplies were delivered to Iraq through the program, that Saddam sold additional oil and pocketed the money. That makes Saddam the oppressor of his own people but not the United States as you lyingly allege.

posted June 16, 2005 10:57 PM            

Nor is there anything to show I worship Bush or the Bush family. Nothing to show I worship anyone.

posted June 16, 2005 11:20 PM            

quote:

---

The US did not block food, medicine or other essential supplies for Iraqi citizens.

---

Yes, they/we did. If you believe otherwise, prove it! If the Iraqi people don't have electrical power or clean water then they're pretty dead in the water, aren't they?

quote:

---

If anything, the US was lax in permitting more oil to be shipped from Iraq than called for by the oil for food program the presumption being it would benefit Iraqi citizens. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again Acoustic. If oil sales were not going to benefit Iraqi citizens, why permit any at all? Your logic is faulty.

---

How can you be SO dense about this? Turkey and Jordan needed the oil, and to keep them as our (the U.S.'s) happy ally, we permitted Saddam to sell to them under the table. The U.S. wasn't under any misconceptions that this money would be used for humanitarian relief. The U.S. was simply placating Turkey and Jordon.

quote:

---

There was no way to supply aid directly to Iraqi citizens with Saddam in power. Yours is an asinine argument, so unreasonable as to be absurd.

---

I agree that our mistrust of Saddam did prevent us from helping the Iraqi people, but my argument has been made over and over again now, and you're the only person who's not getting it. You need to stop trying make an argument that is impossible to make.

quote:

---

According to your thinking, nothing should have been done about Saddam Hussein at all...since anything that was done would also affect Iraqi citizens. Well, Saddam killed about a million of those Iraqi citizens and there were recent free elections with a turnout rate of about 70% and Saddam is heading for a firing squad or beheading...whatever the Iraqi court decides.

---

When did I say nothing should be done about Saddam? That's a fabrication of your own mind once again. It's you putting upon me your interpretation of the facts at hand. I said that I didn't like how the administration jumped to war. If the president and his administration had made the humanitarian argument, you'd have found less opposition from the left, and probably MORE global cooperation.

And on Saddam's fate, at least a court gets to see his case.

quote:

---

Yours is the very same argument as the communists at Workers World Party Acoustic....leave Saddam alone. I don't think Saddam not being good for his nation quite covers the reality of his regime, do you? It that the strongest case you can make against Saddam Hussein? Probably straining yourself to say that much.

---

I wouldn't know as I don't go to that site. However, I've never said leave Saddam alone. You just feel that my critiquing this administration indicates my support for Saddam. It's a ridiculous thought. That was never what this argument was even about.

quote:

---

The proof is that oil was permitted to be sold, that essential supplies were delivered to Iraq through the program, that Saddam sold additional oil and pocketed the money. That makes Saddam the oppressor of his own people but not the United States as you lyingly allege.

---

Not all of the essential supplies were delivered to Iraq. How many times do I have to correct you on this? Now I want you to not only find evidence to the contrary, but also find another person who shares your ridiculous beliefs on this. You really need to find out for yourself that you are alone in your blind belief that the U.S. did nothing to hurt innocent Iraqis. It's comparable to you calling the sun cold. It just doesn't have any basis in reality.

posted June 17, 2005 09:09 AM              

that said, any evil forces rising might ultimately have their aim on america. remember in world was 2 america had no interest in engaging in the war but japan dragged it in.post wwII japan and germany are examples of negative opwers who have no control on their passion to expand their evil empires.

sadam's iraq 'was' one such empire. if it was to be allowed to grow militarily then it would had sure been a threat to the peace of america and the world one day. but smart bush didn't let that happen.

america's foreign policy of 'talk softly but hold a big stick' fits the role of a superpower. bcause 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

posted June 17, 2005 02:05 PM            

The US did not restrict food, medicine or other essentials for maintenance of Iraqi lives. Sanctions and the Oil for Food programs were a function of the UN. Nevertheless, food and medicines have already been addressed and restrictions were not placed on those items.

Your final lies are that the US restricted the drinking water disinfectant chemical chlorine and caused the deaths and disease of Iraqis and somehow restricted electric generation.

Let's deal with electric generation first. No restrictions were placed on wire, cable, transformers, electrical controls or other elements of an electric grid. That argument is silly and utterly laughable. Further, it was Saddam's government which was responsible for maintaining electric plants, not the US or the UN.

Your argument Iraqi citizens were harmed by banning chlorine are also laughable. Iraqi produced it's own chlorine at Tariq and if that plant ran down from inept maintenance or lack of funding by Saddam, that isn't the fault of the US.

Further, chlorine isn't the only water purification chemical in use in the world. So even if there wasn't a drop of chlorine in Iraq, the water could have been purified...by Ozone or Hydrogen Peroxide treatment...neither of which was banned and embargoed as chlorine, a precursor for chemical weapons was.

A contract was let between Iraq and an India company to repair and refurbish the Tariq plants for chlorine production in Iraq after Saddam let it completely go into a state of disrepair.

We don't need to go one step further to puncture your lying balloon that the US repressed Iraqi citizens. Those citizens are free, have had a free election and the only one's fighting against Iraq now are the terrorists and Saddam's old crowd who fear a democratic government in a Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East. They prefer rule by terror and compliance to their rule at the point of a gun.

posted June 17, 2005 07:01 PM            

Read this. I already posted it once, but I guess everyone else got it on the first time.

Here's a part of the document I posted from Dick Lugar's office:

quote:

---

When the OFF program began, Iraq’s purchases of goods were limited to medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs, and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs. Over the life of the program, however, the Security Council took subsequent decisions to allow Iraq to purchase additional categories of goods. These expanded categories of goods included equipment to store, process, and transport food and medicine, and spare parts for Iraq’s oil industry. These changes were made in response to charges pressed by Iraq and by its supporters on the Security Council that the OFF program was not doing enough to alleviate adverse consequences of the sanctions regime on the Iraqi civilian population. Such an expansion in the scope of allowed imports was justified on the grounds that there was no point in importing food or medicine that would only spoil due to improper handling. Moreover, it was argued, Iraq needed to invest in its oil sector if its people were to be fed.

---

posted June 17, 2005 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

These expanded categories of goods included equipment to store, process, and transport food and medicine, and spare parts for Iraq’s oil industry. These changes were made in response to charges pressed by Iraq and by its supporters on the Security Council that the OFF program was not doing enough to alleviate adverse consequences of the sanctions regime on the Iraqi civilian population. Such an expansion in the scope of allowed imports was justified on the grounds that there was no point in importing food or medicine that would only spoil due to improper handling. Moreover

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq producing chlorine within Iraq and it has absolutely nothing to do with electric power generation. Iraq does not and did not import electric power from neighboring countries.
It also has nothing to do with Iraq importing disinfecting chemicals like hydrogen peroxide or Ozone...both of which could have been and for all I know were produced within Iraq.

Stop trying to change the subject. Your premise is a lie. The US did not oppress/repress iraqi citizens.

What did you hope to gain by linking a site without any information on the issue under discussion. And why link to Lugar's report that does not support your contention in any way.

As for chlorine production, look here.
Chlorine (Formerly Fallujah II)
Chlorine, a feedstock for some CW precursors, was produced at Tariq from 1993 to 1996,and sporadically thereafter; however, ISG has not discovered any information that indicates chlorine from the plant was diverted to a CW program. During an ISG site visit, the director of the phenol plant stated that chlorine production had stopped months before OIF. Reporting indicates the facility was unable to obtain membranes—the key component of the technology at Tariq—to separate the chlorine.

Members of the site visit team noted that membranes, probably older, used ones, were stacked by the roadside close to the northwest entrance. The director stated that they had been moved here to protect them in the event that the plant was bombed.

Chlorine from the plant was sold to local sanitation plants and also consumed onsite to produce other commercial water purification compounds such as sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite, which were sold for water treatment, according to the director.

Technical difficulties with the process resulted in lower production outputs from 1996 until 2000. According to the director, the chlorine cells had been broken for several months and control valves, main instrumentation control panels and a step down transformer were missing. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxD.html

posted June 17, 2005 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Chlorine/Phenol Plant (Formerly Fallujah II): Leading up to OIF, this plant was not fully operational, and was unlikely to have provided any basic chemicals such as chlorine or phenol to an Iraqi CW effort. Because of technical problems, the plant could not even supply local markets with its products.

---

quote:

---

Chlorine, a feedstock for some CW precursors, was produced at Tariq from 1993 to 1996,and sporadically thereafter; however, ISG has not discovered any information that indicates chlorine from the plant was diverted to a CW program. During an ISG site visit, the director of the phenol plant stated that chlorine production had stopped months before OIF. Reporting indicates the facility was unable to obtain membranes—the key component of the technology at Tariq—to separate the chlorine.

---

What do you suppose this means? Probably that they were unable to get the parts necessary to repair their facilities, because we, the U.S., were holding up contracts for parts such as this due to their CW applications. Your own document says what I'm saying.

Furthermore, if you continue reading that document you find some shady Indian deal was struck to repair their chlorine plant:

quote:

---

Technical difficulties with the process resulted in lower production outputs from 1996 until 2000. According to the director, the chlorine cells had been broken for several months and control valves, main instrumentation control panels and a step down transformer were missing.

In 1999, the Indian firm NEC Engineers Private, Ltd., was recruited to begin repairing the chlorine production lines, according to multiple sources. The plant director during the interview said NEC constructed the membrane cell equipment that would be use to produce chlorine and caustic soda, but one of the membranes was second-hand and perforated easily, which caused further problems with the operation.

Once the project was completed, operational training in India was scheduled for the plant engineers in, according to documents recovered by ISG.

Tariq, along with MIC employees and a representative from Iraqi Intelligence, formed a committee to conceal imports from India’s NEC engineers during a chlorine plant repair, according to documents recovered by ISG.

By March 2000, with help from the Indian firm NEC Engineers, the chlor-alkali plant was brought back on-line. On 02 July 2003, neither the chlorine nor the phenol plants at Fallujah II were in working order. With little likelihood of any production in the near future, few employees were at the facility.

---

Yeah, that sounds like they had NO trouble with chlorine, huh?

posted June 17, 2005 11:20 PM            

quote:

---

What did you hope to gain by linking a site without any information on the issue under discussion.

---

Ummmm...do you not know how to research anything? Go to this site:
http://www.merip.org/index.html

Then, type in, "Oil for Food," or, "Iraq Sanctions," in the box marked Search in the upper right hand corner. There you'll find a whole treasure trough of information regarding what we're talking about. I just found an article there that's speaks to our very argument.
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero030403.html

It gives all the answers to your side of this argument.

quote:

---

Further, focusing on distribution elides the question of why there is a need for a ration in the first place. During 12 years of sanctions, according to UN and OPEC figures, Iraq has generated about as much oil revenue ($63 billion) as it did in the single year of 1980 ($59 billion), when the Iraqi population was half of what it is today. As Yale economist William Nordhaus puts it, some $200 billion of oil revenue, corresponding to eight years' GDP, has been lost under sanctions. Meanwhile, Oil for Food bureaucracy, deductions for compensation payments to victims of the 1991 Gulf war, delays in contracting and other impediments have kept the value of goods actually arriving under Oil for Food to a mere $25 billion over six years. This corresponds to 50-60 cents per Iraqi per day for the past six years, and nothing at all for six years before that. Most of this amount has necessarily gone towards daily consumption needs, and has left little room for investment in rebuilding infrastructure devastated by allied bombing in 1991. The UN estimated that $29 billion of investment was required in 1991 to restore essential civilian infrastructure to elementary levels. Poverty, coupled with sanctions' ban on foreign investment, leaves Iraqi sanitation systems and electrical power plants in a lamentable state 12 years after the initial damage.

Fifty cents a day is a starvation ration. No matter how it is distributed, it is inadequate. Iraqi elite luxuries are distasteful next to overwhelming deprivation, but false priorities in the implementation of Oil for Food do not account for the level of hardship in which Iraqis find themselves. The corruption of the Iraqi regime is no excuse for the international community to ignore the damage caused by its attempts to coerce the Iraqi leadership.

---

There's more both before and after these two paragraphs if you should care to learn.

quote:

---

And why link to Lugar's report that does not support your contention in any way.

---

If you go back and read it, the highlighted parts back up the assertions that I, amongst others, have made. It's the second post of page 4.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001268-4.html

quote:

---

Stop trying to change the subject. Your premise is a lie. The US did not oppress/repress iraqi citizens.

---

Once again, you're butting your head against the facts. It's not an easy position to work from.

My premise is correct, and you haven't said a single relevant thing about the argument in ages. In fact, it's been YOU that's tried to change the subject by trying to link me with communists and sh!t like that. You bring up things that are SO irrelevant as to be absurd.