Heh!?!

[Radek]

I must have been overlooking this forum for a long time. There are more than 6000 posts on the forum and I have spotted it for the first time. Well, I haven't expected such forum on the game related pages. This is not a game. It is a disaster.
I will not hide that I am a leftist. I am stadning very left from the centre even if I am not a communist.

The comming war with Iraq is the worst news of these days. Unless the war will be approved by UN, the war will be an act of state terrorism, an aggresion, and a crime against peace. Because only UN can approve attack against Iraq according to the UN Charter. The USA could make a war with Iraq only if Iraq endangered USA somehow.

How does Iraq endanger USA? Two reasosns are usually mentioned, both of them are ridiculous nonsense.
1. It is said that Iraq develops weapons of mass destruction. We are told for a long time that Iraq does own these weapons. But - we have never seen any proof of it. Worse, even the new UN monitoring mission hasn't seen any! Let us ask why? Wouldn't it be the most simple proof of the danger comming from Iraq to tell the mission "go there and there and check this and this"? Why the mission is not told where to search for the proof if USA and GB supposedly own such information? I think this dilemma has only one solution: the so called proofs do not exist. The whole propaganda arond Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is a pure war propaganda.
2. Iraq is a source of terrorism. Again, nobody has proved it. A remarkable effort has been shown to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida. No such link has been found even if the State Department, IIRC, created an office specialized in finding it. No results so far. Many terrorists or supposed terrorists has been caught since 9-11 but, IIRC, none of them originated from Iraq neither was connected to Iraq. If some terrorist were connected to Iraq, the media would tell it to us and they would repeat it endlessly. I am sure of it.
Therefore, we can forget both "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism".

Are there any other "reasons" of attacking Iraq?
3. Saddam is a dictator which does not respect any kind of human rights. Yes, he is and yes, he does not. But, first, nobody except Iraquis themselves is authorized to overthrow their dictator. Neither USA nor any other "civilized country" is authorized to substitute Iraq nations! This is no reason! And, second, don't we support or haven't we supported similar or worse regimes around the world? Didn't we supported Pinochet? Didn't we prevent victims of Pinochet's terror from putting Pinochet to the court? Didn't we support Taliban for a long time? Aren't we supporting Saudi Arabia and similar countries? Why the double measure? Why one dictator is good and another one is bad?
4. Saddam does not obey UN resolutions. Again a double measure. Near Iraq, there is another country that does not obey any UN resolutions for dozens of years. Nevertheless, that country is supported by us all the time without any restrictions or sanctions. Every UN resolution that would engage that country to anything was vetoed by the USA. Only toothless resolutions were allowed to pass. I shall consider the argument (4) only when I shall see that the same argument is applied to all which do not obey UN resolutions.

So why on earth. Why? I think there are two "reasons" for the war.
1. Oil. Let us note that the USA are a bit "out of game" as far as Iraq oil is considered. Iraq made contracts with French and Russian companies. This must change! All resources on this planet must be controlled by the USA and only by the USA! The others can contribute but not rule! In the other words, the New World Order as we know it from the famous Orwell's 1984. The war with Iraq is a part of conquerring the World.
2. The genocidal UN sanctions. The sanctions are run by the USA and GB. Other countries aren't happy to see them. Not because they love Saddam but because the sanctions are murdering innocent people instead of hitting Saddam. So far, more than 1.5 millions of Iraquis died of the sanctions. More than 800 000(!) of them were children. Two attempts of hiding the real essence of the sanctions were made so far:
a) The "Oil for Food" programme. The attempt failed because of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck. They told the world the truth.
b) The "Smart Sanctions" attempt. The attemt was devised badly so that the others saw through the fog of the "Smart Sanctions". The "Smart Sanctions" were the "old sanctions" which pretended that Saddam was guilty of deaths of Iraquis, not the sanctions themselves. Vetoed.
Let us note that the sanctions are at their end. They cannot be maintained for a long time anymore because the number of their victims is too big. On the other hand, a retreat is impossible - it would be a gigantic exposure which could end at the ICC. Is there any other way out? Yes it is! A war! Therefore:
a) Make a war with Iraq. Occupy Iraq.
b) Import the "Iraq weapons of mass destruction". Find them. This will give a reason for the war.
c) Create a puppet government in Iraq.
d) Replace history by a lie. Accuse the current Iraq government of the deaths caused by the sanctions. End the sanctions. Conquer the oil.

Originally posted by Radek: I must have been overlooking this forum for a long time. There are more than 6000 posts on the forum and I have spotted it for the first time. Well, I haven't expected such forum on the game related pages. This is not a game. It is a disaster. I will not hide that I am a leftist. I am stadning very left from the centre even if I am not a communist. LoL, and welcome to the War Forum . Now we need to get some definitions straight. Are you a leftist as defined in the USA or as defined in Europe? (apparently there are vast differences) so we should know for the sake of clarity [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh and thanks for being up front. I would Identify myself as your anti-matter counter part The comming war with Iraq is the worst news of these days. Unless the war will be approved by UN, the war will be an act of state terrorism, an aggresion, and a crime against peace. Because only UN can approve attack against Iraq according to the UN Charter. The USA could make a war with Iraq only if Iraq endangered USA somehow. You are assumeing that the UN is actually in charge of the world. In fact, the UN does very little and is mostly a useless collection of nice thoughts and poor implementation. Defining any action not sponsored by the UN as state terrorism is...pretty lame. How does Iraq endanger USA? Two reasosns are usually mentioned, both of them are ridiculous nonsense. 1. It is said that Iraq develops weapons of mass destruction. We are told for a long time that Iraq does own these weapons. But - we have never seen any proof of it. Worse, even the new UN monitoring mission hasn't seen any! Let us ask why? Wouldn't it be the most simple proof of the danger comming from Iraq to tell the mission "go there and there and check this and this"? Why the mission is not told where to search for the proof if USA and GB supposedly own such information? I think this dilemma has only one solution: the so called proofs do not exist. The whole propaganda arond Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is a pure war propaganda. You need to get a better grip of the UN inspectors...they haven't found anything for three reasons, 1. they look in the wrong places, 2. Blix doesnt "WANT" to find anything and 3. They are not using very well trained people in any case...one guys only qualification is that he runs an S&M club in Washington DC. The UN even admits the inspectors were chosen so as not to offend the Iraqi's. The Proofs do exist, several of the inspectors fromt he previous round of inspection have said so, Bush has shown several leaders the proof and changed their minds, just because he doesnt show it to the press is not an indication of anything...Secure Comparmented Information is never shared with the press..it could get people killed or worse. There are places marked as the prime places to look, only the inspectors are not allowed to go there because they have been declared "Presidential Palaces" there were over 100 of these "palaces" at my last count. The largest "Palace" is a huge reserve in the north with very very large facilities drilled under the mountains which has started the US researching small Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs. 2. Iraq is a source of terrorism. Again, nobody has proved it. A remarkable effort has been shown to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida. No such link has been found even if the State Department, IIRC, created an office specialized in finding it. No results so far. Many terrorists or supposed terrorists has been caught since 9-11 but, IIRC, none of them originated from Iraq neither was connected to Iraq. If some terrorist were connected to Iraq, the media would tell it to us and they would repeat it endlessly. I am sure of it. Therefore, we can forget both "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism". Are there any other "reasons" of attacking Iraq? The US war on terrorism is supposed to be to chase them wherever they go and wherever they get their support. You don't believe what the administration tells us, but you have no proof your counter claims are true...I belive the intelligence workers before I believe the liberal reporter every time. 3. Saddam is a dictator which does not respect any kind of human rights. Yes, he is and yes, he does not. But, first, nobody except Iraquis themselves is authorized to overthrow their dictator. Neither USA nor any other "civilized country" is authorized to substitute Iraq nations! This is no reason! And, second, don't we support or haven't we supported similar or worse regimes around the world? Didn't we supported Pinochet? Didn't we prevent victims of Pinochet's terror from putting Pinochet to the court? Didn't we support Taliban for a long time? Aren't we supporting Saudi Arabia and similar countries? Why the double measure? Why one dictator is good and another one is bad? Thats not even a true statement. People and nations have been "Interfering" to protect others for a loong time. We feed the poor, we help rescue people after natural disasters and when despots oppress people we (the world community) quite frequently butt in to help the opressed. So you are way off on this supposition that we have no right. Do I have no right to interfere if I see you getting beaten and raped by a criminal? or should I say...let him help himself? 4. Saddam does not obey UN resolutions. Again a double measure. Near Iraq, there is another country that does not obey any UN resolutions for dozens of years. Nevertheless, that country is supported by us all the time without any restrictions or sanctions. Every UN resolution that would engage that country to anything was vetoed by the USA. Only toothless resolutions were allowed to pass. I shall consider the argument (4) only when I shall see that the same argument is applied to all which do not obey UN resolutions. The US and coalition forces won a war, it is up to the US to decide how to impose the terms of the victory if the other members fail their duty to make sure they are observed. Why? because we can. So why on earth. Why? I think there are two "reasons" for the war. 1. Oil. Let us note that the USA are a bit "out of game" as far as Iraq oil is considered. Iraq made contracts with French and Russian companies. This must change! All resources on this planet must be controlled by the USA and only by the USA! The others can contribute but not rule! In the other words, the New World Order as we know it from the famous Orwell's 1984. The war with Iraq is a part of conquerring the World. Total BS! that fails to take into account the real facts of the case. Others in other threads int his forum have proven this fallacy wrong, I suggest you check some of them out. 2. The genocidal UN sanctions. The sanctions are run by the USA and GB. Other countries aren't happy to see them. Not because they love Saddam but because the sanctions are murdering innocent people instead of hitting Saddam. So far, more than 1.5 millions of Iraquis died of the sanctions. More than 800 000(!) of them were children. Two attempts of hiding the real essence of the sanctions were made so far: a) The "Oil for Food" programme. The attempt failed because of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck. They told the world the truth. b) The "Smart Sanctions" attempt. The attemt was devised badly so that the others saw through the fog of the "Smart Sanctions". The "Smart Sanctions" were the "old sanctions" which pretended that Saddam was guilty of deaths of Iraquis, not the sanctions themselves. Vetoed. Let us note that the sanctions are at their end. They cannot be maintained for a long time anymore because the number of their victims is too big. On the other hand, a retreat is impossible - it would be a gigantic exposure which could end at the ICC. Is there any other way out? Yes it is! A war! Therefore: a) Make a war with Iraq. Occupy Iraq. b) Import the "Iraq weapons of mass destruction". Find them. This will give a reason for the war. c) Create a puppet government in Iraq. d) Replace history by a lie. Accuse the current Iraq government of the deaths caused by the sanctions. End the sanctions. Conquer the oil. I can't fault you for finding fault with the UN. There has not been a more inneffectual body of quasi-government in a very very long time. The UN should probably be disbanded and forgotten.

[Cloudbringer]

Radek, this is a temporary forum. Originally it was created to discuss the September 11 terrorist attacks and subsequent events but was taken down.

Please be sure to read Ziroc's welcome to all users of this forum. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Radek]

Okay [img]smile.gif[/img]

1. UN isn't any ruler and it cannot be any ruler. It weren't devised to be some kind of ruler. UN is a place where the problems between countries should be solved and a chance for a peace should be searched for. That's the role of UN. All members of UN, including the USA, engaged themselves to obey the UN Charter. Among others, they promised not to use power against themselves and solve problems by means of negotiations. They also delegated the decision whether to use power against some country to the Security Council.

2. Ask yourself. Why do the inspectors look at wrong places? And, is it really impossible to tell the inspectors where to search? Must such pointer endanger anybody? You need not tell the source of the information! Why the intelligence service does not tell the inspectors something like this: "A grandma from Morrowind witnessed that the Iraq WMD are there and there. Go there and there and check it!". Who is endangered? Nobody.
Now, if the inspectors ignored such message then you would be right: they don't want to find anything. Otherwise, you will need to explain why do you think that they do not want to find anything.

3. The palaces are no more tabu. This excuse (not your excuse, the official excuse) is unusable now.

4. I know the argument about somebody being raped. But I consider it a false argument. The international affairs are something different from inter-people affairs. The difference consists in the concept of sovereignity. The countries are sovereigns. On the other hand, the citizens of a particular country are submitted to the same law. Therefore, it is clear that it is the raper who violates the law and, moreover, that the raper must count on your punching him (you will act according to the law).
On the other hand, it is not clear who violates the law if we exchange the raper and his victim by sovereign countries. As far as both countries obey the international law, you cannot tell who is the raper and who is the victim. No country on the earth is authorized to decide it. Not even the USA. This decision was delegated to UN by all UN members - including the USA.

5. Because we can? That's wrong, MagiK! Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a US action but a UN one! It's the UN who decides how to impose the terms of victory! And MagiK, we are speaking about one and half millions of deads here. We are speaking about three quarthers of million of dead children. Yes, "you" (the USA) can let the chilren die. "You" are enough strong to force others to see the chilred die. "You" can veto any attempt to alleviate their fate. But then don't be surprised at the image of the USA in the world.

6. The UN should be disbanded and forgotten? MagiK, do you know why the UN were created? To prevent future wars. To create an institute of the international law. To allow solving problems peacefully. Disband? Okay. And now? Replace UN by the USA? No, thanks.

[Djinn Raffo]

Part of the reason the UN is 'powerless' is because a greater power exists: The US. Would the USA be able to give up its 'status' so to speak and abide by the decisions of the UN? Maybe not in the UN's present state.. but to move towards a true international community and have a true brotherhood of Nations, world government... that is what the USA must eventually do. Otherwise the UN will remain always as it is now.. useless.

Another option to move in that direction is for the USA to move fully in the direction of this 'world policemen' role. If the USA is going to be the policemen of the world, a role that should fully belong to the UN
Security Council, then perhaps the USA should just adopt some sort of 'Empire', 'Hegemony', or 'United Nations' label and start determining and handling the affairs of the UN itself.

[ 01-13-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Originally posted by Radek: Okay [img]smile.gif[/img] 1. UN isn't any ruler and it cannot be any ruler. It weren't devised to be some kind of ruler. UN is a place where the problems between countries should be solved and a chance for a peace should be searched for. That's the role of UN. All members of UN, including the USA, engaged themselves to obey the UN Charter. Among others, they promised not to use power against themselves and solve problems by means of negotiations. They also delegated the decision whether to use power against some country to the Security Council. The way you phrased your first argument made it sound like you believed that the USA had to get permission from the UN to take action, which is not the case. The UN was originally designed to do what you say, however now it has been perverted into a useless, hoplessly politicized body of politicians. It no longer servers any real purpose and has become more focused on appeasement of bad behaviour much like Nevile Chamberlain in the 1930's 2. Ask yourself. Why do the inspectors look at wrong places? And, is it really impossible to tell the inspectors where to search? Must such pointer endanger anybody? You need not tell the source of the information! Why the intelligence service does not tell the inspectors something like this: "A grandma from Morrowind witnessed that the Iraq WMD are there and there. Go there and there and check it!". Who is endangered? Nobody. Now, if the inspectors ignored such message then you would be right: they don't want to find anything. Otherwise, you will need to explain why do you think that they do not want to find anything. They look in the wrong places because A. Saddam, will not allow them intot he correct places and B. The UN and Hans Blix are pacifistic trolls who would rather turn a blind eye than actually ever DO anything. Please do not take this as an insult but you seem to be very ignorant of "Intelligence" matters. In the world of intelligence (spies and the like) Methods and Sources are the most closely held secrets of all. If you release the wrong information, you may get your source killed, or loose your techologic advantage. Case in point. The Enigma Machine, was a machine that the Germans used to encode their communications in WWII, but some British people broke the code....however they could not always use the information they gathered or the germans would know that their code was broken...so some times people died that could have been prevented...for the greater good. Oh and by the way, Iraq still has stockpiles of Mustard Gas that the inspectors this time knew about and found...so it is still there and can still be used. 3. The palaces are no more tabu. This excuse (not your excuse, the official excuse) is unusable now. And yet they are not being searched [img]smile.gif[/img] I do know that there is one region in particular that the inspectors are staying away from that they should be all over. 4. I know the argument about somebody being raped. But I consider it a false argument. The international affairs are something different from inter-people affairs. The difference consists in the concept of sovereignity. The countries are sovereigns. On the other hand, the citizens of a particular country are submitted to the same law. Therefore, it is clear that it is the raper who violates the law and, moreover, that the raper must count on your punching him (you will act according to the law). So basicly it is ok to rape ad pillage people by the thousands or tens of thousands, just not when it is done on an individual basis? Sounds pretty shakey to me On the other hand, it is not clear who violates the law if we exchange the raper and his victim by sovereign countries. As far as both countries obey the international law, you cannot tell who is the raper and who is the victim. No country on the earth is authorized to decide it. Not even the USA. This decision was delegated to UN by all UN members - including the USA. And yet we do it all the time, one nation denouncing another, economic sanctions are being levied all the time. It is no different. 5. Because we can? That's wrong, MagiK! Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a US action but a UN one! It's the UN who decides how to impose the terms of victory! And MagiK, we are speaking about one and half millions of deads here. We are speaking about three quarthers of million of dead children. Yes, "you" (the USA) can let the chilren die. "You" are enough strong to force others to see the chilred die. "You" can veto any attempt to alleviate their fate. But then don't be surprised at the image of the USA in the world. Actually it was a "Coalition" action mostly conducted by the USA and Britain. The UN "anctioned" it but did not have any role in the action. Nor would it have mattered, George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher would have gone in alone if necessary. As for your casualty numbers...they are incorect [img]smile.gif[/img] Do some more searching. There were a few children killed, mostly due to unavoidable error and the fact that Saddam used civilians as human shields for his military assets. The United States, invests BILLIONS (with a capital B) of dollars into developing and purchasing weapons that do everything humanly and technologicly possible to avoid civilian casualties. US. Pilots fly more dangerous routes and troops risk their lives all in an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, our men and women die trying to avoid hurting civilians...where most other armies just march right through them. So you can't lecture me about how cruel we (the US) are in our application of military might. As for the "world Image" of the US. Well when people start turning down our charity, and quit asking for our help, when they close our bases in their countries, then we will go home and let you all fend for your selves. Untill then we help when and where we can. 6. The UN should be disbanded and forgotten? MagiK, do you know why the UN were created? To prevent future wars. To create an institute of the international law. To allow solving problems peacefully. Disband? Okay. And now? Replace UN by the USA? No, thanks. No way Jose! The US doesnt want to replace the UN. But as it exists today the UN is useless and ineffectual. So far no one has given me any list of things the UN has actually accomplished...they TRY to do some things, but actually accomplish little. I also have to inform you that the USA never agreed to be bound by "international" rule of the UN. We have a Constitution that prevents our government from suborning our freedoms to a foreign power.

[ 01-13-2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Official Casulaty counts for the gulf war.

US forces. 147 killed, 457 wounded. And some of these were "friendly fire" (35 deaths, 72 wounded) cases.

Iraqi forces: estimates only are available since Iraq didn't have accurate counts to start with.

Dead: 750 - 1500 dead due to the Air Campaign.
Wounded: 2250 - 4500 due to the air campaign.
Civilian Dead: <100 in the Air Campaign.

71,000 Iraqi's taken prisoner in the ground war, of which only 2000 were wounded.

DIA esitmates show that 100,000 total Iraqi troops were killed in ground action, 300,000 troops wounded, 150,000 desertions and less than 200 total civilian deaths. no numbers listed for civilians wounded.

EDIT: Seems a far cry from the "millions" claimed by "some" people. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-13-2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Radek: So why on earth. Why? I think there are two "reasons" for the war. 1. Oil. Let us note that the USA are a bit "out of game" as far as Iraq oil is considered. Iraq made contracts with French and Russian companies. This must change! All resources on this planet must be controlled by the USA and only by the USA! The others can contribute but not rule! In the other words, the New World Order as we know it from the famous Orwell's 1984. The war with Iraq is a part of conquerring the World.

Actually, Russia and France only agreed to the SC resolution to force the return of the inspectors after they were promised their billion dollar oil contracts with Iraq would be honored in a post-Saddam Iraq. The Russian's also had to be assured the debt the Iraqi's ran up buying arms would be honored as well.

If we're trying to control that oil, we're going about it all wrong by promising it to others.

Lift the sanctions so Saddam can buy food for his people? If he isn't using the "oil for food" money now on food, what makes anyone think he would spend extra cash on food. He's using most of his limited money to feed the army and purchase military equipment, like the AA sites which are constantly being destroyed for "locking" onto coalition aircraft. He puts them in place, gives them orders that insure their destruction, and after the site is destroyed, he replaces it with a new one. That certainly costs money. I wonder how many bags of rice and flour could be purchased with the money just one of those sites costs? Quite a bit would be my guess.

The sanctions aren't against food and medical supplies anyway. How would lifting the sanctions and allowing him to legally buy more weapons systems feed the Iraqi people? It wouldn't.

Saddam wasn't spending his oil money to feed his people and improve their standard of living prior to the Gulf War, and he hasn't spent and isn't spending the "oil for food" money on food for his people, so what makes anyone think lifting the sanctions and flooding him with oil money would result in anyone being fed?

[ 01-13-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Great Post IR, it constantly amazes me athow people think Saddam is some kind of rational benevolent ruler. Like he would do something so silly as to spend food money on food for his people....

[Radek]

1. The Desert Strom war was really based on a UN resolution. That's why it was legal. Therefore, US really got a permission from the UN. If you are speaking about the Desert Fox action, then it was an illegal act of aggression because it was not based on a UN decision.

2. They look in the wrong places... Now you are dodging, MagiK. We are not speaking about "know how", we are not speaking about pieces of information that must remain secret (like diplomatic encryption codes or the knowledge of the codes of others), we are not speaking about sources of that information or about methods of gaining it. We are speaking about information which we awfully need to publicize but which we cannot publicize for some reason. Consider these two situations:

Case 1: The CIA states that there is a storage of WMD below the Palace X.
We can believe it or we can not. We can ask how CIA knows it. Also, if we publicize the statement this way, the basement of Palace X will be emptied lightning fast.

Case 2: The CIA tells the inspectors that they should check the basement of Palace X. The inspectors go there unexpectedly, check the basement and state: "Yes, we have found WMD in the basement of Palace X. Here are the WMD" and show the WMD on the TV.
Now, it's hard not to believe that the basement of Palace X does not serve as a storage of WMD. The inspectors were there, checked it, and found the WMD.

As we can see, the current inspections are a powerful ally at our side because they allow us to publicize facts that we need to publicize. But they AREN'T our powerful ally! Why? Sorry, I cannot accept sentences like "Blix and Co. are pacifistic trolls" as an answer. It's no explanation. It's a war propaganda.
Also, you have added an obvious untruth. Where do you know from that the current inspections have found Mustard Gas? If it were so, MagiK, the inspections would be over, the UN resolution would be proclaimed and the war with Iraq would be going. Because Mustard Gas is a chemical WMD.

3. The palaces weren't searched? MagiK, who informs you about Iraq? The palaces are searched all the time! Please can you explain where you have got such false information?

4. Where have I stated that raping is okay, MagiK? You are trying to foist something I didn't say upon me.
As far as "your" (i.e., the USA) self-proclaimed role of the world's sheriff is considered, yes, "you" do it all the time and "you" force others to do the same. It's the law of the fist - something completely unacceptable in the civilized world. Civilized people use other ways of argumentation. A fist as an argument belongs to the lowest level pubs in slums and similar places.

5. My numbers are correct, MagiK. It's your numbers that are total nonsense in the better case. 200 deaths of civilians? MagiK, only the shelter in Baghdad that was bombed "mistakenly" during the Desert Storm war contained much more civilians! "200 deaths" is a plain lie.
Next, I would like to turn your attention to one interview with M. Albright in one well known TV programme. She was asked whether the half a million dead children in Iraq were worth it. She replied: "Yes, we think it's worth it". The reply shocked the whole world. This was, IIRC, in 1995. Now, we have year 2003. Be sure that the number of dead children did not decrease since then. Quite the opposite.
As far at my supposed "lecturing" is concerned, you are mistaking argumentation for "lecturing". I am not about to "lecture" anybody.

To Ronn_Bman. You are repeating the standard propaganda about Saddam not allowing his people to feed. If you want to know the reality then check, for example pages of D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck (http://www.notinournames.org).
Note: D. Halliday was the first UN administrator of the "Oil for Food" programme. H. von Sponeck was the second UN administrator of the same programme. Therefore, both D. Halliday and H. von Sponeck are people that know what are they speaking about. Both of them abdicated after finding out what the programme really is.