on resolution 1441, sanctions, "oil for food",
... we allow life support machines but no computers to run them..Blood bags, but no catheters....
⦠since Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States has insisted that the UN maintain those sanctions on Iraq â the most comprehensive sanctions in history â effectively putting the entire nation of Iraq under prolonged siege. Fundamentally, âsanctionsâ mean that Iraqâs sale of oil is completely controlled by the UN. Without the purchasing power to repair the vast damage of the Gulf War attacks (95% of Iraqâs foreign exchange came from the sale of oil), the siege has extended and exponentially increased the effects of the bombing.
But what about â¦
The âoil-for-foodâ [OfF] program? This program allows Iraq to sell its oil. The money from the sale of oil goes into a UN escrow account in the Bank of Paris in New York City. The UN controls those funds, not Iraq. (That fact should put to rest charges that Iraq âuses oil-for-food money to purchase arms.â Iraq may want to, but it canât access the money at all.) The UN disburses the money first for reparations, then to finance its own operations in Iraq, and finally to the suppliers with which Iraq has had to make contracts.
If the OfF worked perfectly, it would allot each Iraqi about a dollar a day to exist on. But the besiegers can be clever even then. Enter the veto.
Every contract under the âoil-for-foodâ deal has to be approved by a committee. Any member of that committee can veto any contract for any reason. The US is a permanent member of that committee. And the US has exercised the veto over 1,500 times in the last 5 years (next is Britain with a paltry 160 vetoes). Sometimes the US exercises a âstraightâ veto. For example, the US invariably vetoes spare parts to repair the water or sewage systems; invariably veto spare parts for oil production. Always for communication. The US sometimes vetoes baby milk powder because it has phosphates, and that can be used for bombs. The US blocks means of chlorine delivery for water purification because they can be used for chemical warfare. The same with many drugs.
But the really winning strategy is what the UN calls âthe problem of complementarity.â The US allows life support machines, then vetoes the computers needed to run them. The US allows dentistsâ chairs, then vetoes the compressors. The US allows blood bags, then vetoes the catheters. The US allow insulin, then vetoes syringes. The result? The Iraqis âwasteâ what little money they have on things that donât work. And, the US State Department can point to a warehouse where they store the insulin, waiting for syringes, and say, âLook, theyâre hoarding medicine! They have it, but theyâre not distributing it.â[41]
What was the US seeking with a new resolution? Under the previous UN Security Council [UNSC] Resolutions, Iraqâs disarmament would lead to a lifting of the brutal sanctions against Iraq. Under the new UNSCR 1441 crafted by the US, no mention is made of lifting the sanctions. Instead, weapons inspections would lead to a military invasion of Iraq.[15] That is, if the weapons inspections âfail,â then the US would want a free hand to invade Iraq to remove them.
(Has Saddam already destroyed the WMD's?)
Besides, Ritter asserts, Iraq had been effectively disarmed from its WMD by 1996. Other weapons inspectors, like Raymond Zalinskas[62] and Rolf Ekeus,[63] agree with him. All WMD production facilities were destroyed. All means for long-range delivery were destroyed. In the four years since the weapons inspectors have been in Iraq, Iraq not had the economic resources to a) rebuild its factories, b) research, c) develop, d) weaponize, and e) test such weapons. Even if it did, such manufacture would require a distinctive infrastructure â railing, a network of access roads, immense power sources â and massive construction activity (the more if it were underground, as some fantasies would have us fear). Iraq would have to store and then deploy quantities of WMD sufficiently massive to be used in warfare, and also acquire the means to deliver them. Presently, six, billion-dollar US spy satellites make twelve passes over Iraq every 24 hours. These satellites, which have a day-time imaging resolution of four to six inches, would have spotted such an enormous undertaking.[64] Yet they have discovered nothing in Saddam Husseinâs Iraq
During the July 31-August 1 hearings on Iraq in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking representative of the Republican Party, Senator Richard Lugar (R-In), submitted a strategy for urging other countries to join the US in invading Iraq: The US should tell other countries that â. . . we are going to run the oil business...
(other items)
First, the loss of lives...
Second, International Law and the UN
Third, the Middle East.
Fourth, the Cost[105]
Fifth, the âDay Afterâ
Sixth, the Loss of Liberty at Home
Finally, the Immorality
What to do?
.............
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/why_invade_iraq.html
It seems the invasion and taking over the oil fields is a done deal..
As Kissinger said: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer"
Josh
