OIL-FOR-FOOD FACTS, NOT FANTASY
After maintaining a 13-year embargo against Iraq for a big lie (weapons of mass destruction), the U.S. is still trying to gain political ground for such a humanitarian disaster the led to the deaths of about two million people and the destruction of the infrastructure of a modern country, turning it into, in the words of the U.N., "a pre-industrial society." Now, the U.S. is accusing the U.N. of being part of a scheme between Iraq and the organization where people skimmed money off the top of the "oil-for-food" program. However, proof is emerging showing there was no scandal...
[12202]
|
Uruknet on Alexa
>
:: Segnala Uruknet agli amici. Clicka qui.
:: Invite your friends to Uruknet. Click here.
:: Segnalaci un articolo
:: Tell us of an article
|
|
OIL-FOR-FOOD FACTS, NOT FANTASY
Malcom Lagauche
 |
1,000s of household items were banned by the U.S. for Iraq from 1991-2003
Tuesday/Wednesday, May 31-June 1, 2005
After maintaining a 13-year embargo against Iraq for a big lie (weapons of mass destruction), the U.S. is still trying to gain political ground for such a humanitarian disaster the led to the deaths of about two million people and the destruction of the infrastructure of a modern country, turning it into, in the words of the U.N., "a pre-industrial society."
Now, the U.S. is accusing the U.N. of being part of a scheme between Iraq and the organization where people skimmed money off the top of the "oil-for-food" program. However, proof is emerging showing there was no scandal.
A couple of weeks ago, George Galloway, the anti-war member of the British Parliament, lambasted the U.S. Senate for telling lies about him and the oil-for-food program. Not one senator challenged Galloway because he told the truth. The U.S. Senate was unprepared for such a tenacious and principled opponent as Galloway.
Let’s look at the oil-for-food program and what occurred from 1996 to 2003. Iraq was allowed to sell oil and use the funds for feeding its people. But, things were not quite that simple. The U.S., or any country on the Security Council, could stop orders with only a negative vote. No reason was necessary.
Over the years, billions of dollars of items were stopped from going to Iraq solely because of the U.S. veto. Most of the time, the vote was 14-1. We’re not talking about the U.S. negating an order for weapons-grade uranium, but orders for things such as pencils, toilet paper, toys, plywood and other everyday materials. Check out the list in the graphic with this article.
Now, once Iraq was paid for the oil, the money went into a U.N. fund. Only the U.N. could pay for the orders. But, the first 30% of the money went to Kuwait for reparations; reparations for destruction caused by U.S. bombs and missiles, not Iraqi military operations. The next 15% went to the Kurds, allowing them to gain billions of dollars for absolutely no output. That free money made it possible for the Kurds to gain a good lifestyle while the rest of Iraq suffered. Actually, some Kurds are upset because, with the overthrow of Saddam, they have lost a lot of money.
Then, the U.N. staff in Iraq had to be paid. Finally, with less than 50% of the revenues due it, Iraq was allowed to buy items.
The big misconception is that the U.N. paid for the oil-for-food program. Iraq paid for it; nobody else. The U.N. called the shots of where the money went.
Billions upon billions of dollars were spent from the Iraqi money that Iraq never saw. For instance, huge compensation claims came forth from various Gulf countries alleging that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait cost them money. They were paid large sums for claims that mostly could not be verified, but Iraq had no say in the matter.
On January 9, 2005, Al-Jazeera News reported that at least five billion dollars were overpaid to Gulf states. Various reasons were given, such as lack of knowledge of the claims by the "independent" board set up to look into them. Coincidentally, the claims were not tied to the oil-for-food program, but it became convenient to use it as a guise because Iraq’s money was sitting in escrow under the supervision of the U.N. Iraq was screwed again.
Five billion dollars could have gone a long way in feeding starving Iraqi kids. Instead, the money went into some rich sheiks’ bank accounts. The irony of this is that brothers of youngsters who died because of lack of food or medicine are now resisting the U.S. presence in Iraq and killing U.S. personnel. Neither Clinton nor Bush thought of this while they were starving Iraq. To them, an ass-kissing sheik from Qatar or the U.A.E. was more worthy of receiving Iraqi money than the people of Iraq.
Many people other than Iraqis benefited from the oil-for-food program. Once the mechanics were in place, the rats discovered how to manipulate the program and gain huge amounts of money. Sure, there were many companies who gained because of legitimate business dealings: they sold their products and were paid for them. But, there were many "gray" areas in which business was conducted; gray areas not practiced by Iraq.
Iraq did, for the most part, have a choice in which companies it bought from. French, Russian, German and Italian firms dominated. This upset the U.S., but it is only human nature to deal with countries who were fair to you.
Sure, Saddam sold oil on the black market. In his place, I would have done the same. The leader of a country would be remiss if he did not try to gain revenues to keep his country afloat. And, it is known that the black market revenues did not go, as many times alleged by Madeleine Albright, to purchasing weapons. Why don’t we hear about those allegations today and compare them to the facts? It seems that everybody forgot the Clinton and Bush administration liars who got in front of the TV cameras and told of Saddam purchasing diabolical weapons that would be used to destroy the U.S. Not only were there no weapons of mass destruction, the conventional military forces of Iraq were in disrepair. Little money was used for their upkeep.
There was only one reason for the embargo: the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by his people. Original CIA estimates in March 1991 gave him six months until he was toppled. Six months came and went and the CIA gave him another six months.
It is preposterous that a country was allowed to keep another in total isolation and destitution for 13 years because of ego. The U.S. said Saddam had to go and that was that. Lies upon lies fueled this 13-year timeframe.
Now, what do we have after the illegal invasion of Iraq? An illegal government that called for illegal elections. And, the illegal kidnapping and imprisonment of the legal government of Iraq. Add to that almost 3,000 American dead (military and civilian personnel) and more than 20,000 wounded. Add to that more than 100,000 Iraqi dead and a nonfunctional country. Add to that the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has spent, and will continue to spend, to create this scenario.
If every lie we heard about the Ba’ath government’s diabolical actions was true, they would not have been able to, dollar-for-dollar, emit such devastation on the world as they and the Iraqi people suffered. They couldn’t have even come close. Such a bargain.
|
|
:: Article nr. 12202 sent on 31-may-2005 17:39 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=12202
Link: www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
The section for the comments of our readers has been closed, because of many out-of-topics.
Now you can post your own comments into our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/uruknet
[ Printable version
] | [ Send it to a friend ]
[ Contatto/Contact ] | [ Home Page ] | [Tutte le notizie/All news ]
|
|
Uruknet on Twitter
::
RSS updated to 2.0
:: English
:: Italiano
::
Uruknet for your mobile phone:
www.uruknet.mobi
Uruknet on Facebook
The newsletter archive
:: All events
|
