Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Suharto the Model Killer
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chris_J2

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:53 am Post subject:

Now Kissinger , is a truly evil man!

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:26 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

arjuna wrote:

Suharto: 'One of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century'

Let's not forget that Suharto also essentially committed genocide in East Timor where he 200,000 of it 600,000 residents died in the independence struggle against his brutal regime, but he only began that invasion after getting the green light from Ford and Kissinger.

Incredibly, the article doesn't even mention East Timor.

As if the US could stop them.

Quote:

While Kissinger, in the memo, acknowledged that the Indonesians have been �maneuvering to absorb the colony� through negotiations with Portugal and �covert military operations in the colony itself,� he apparently did not expect an overt invasion using U.S.-supplied military equipment.

I thought you are big on non intervention.

But more than anything the US was in the middle of the cold war and it didn't have many allies in that part of the world at the time.

the US wasn't always perfect but the cold war was defensive and justified.

It wasn't something the US wanted. The US didn't encourage Indonesia to do it and it wasn't something the US profited from.

chris_J2

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Suharto

And Australia was preoccupied with the November 1975 political crisis (sacking of Gough Whitlam), & the reconstruction of Darwin, after Cyclone Tracy in December, 1974. (our 'Katrina'). Indonesia was opportunistic. But Australia finally did push for Independence of East Timor in the late 90's. Suharto was not all bad news, btw. He was the glue that held Indonesia together for decades. He would not tolerate any dissent, & threw Abu Bakir Bashir (responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings) into prison.

happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Suharto

chris_J2 wrote:

And Australia was preoccupied with the November 1975 political crisis (sacking of Gough Whitlam), & the reconstruction of Darwin, after Cyclone Tracy in December, 1974. (our 'Katrina'). Indonesia was opportunistic. But Australia finally did push for Independence of East Timor in the late 90's.

Suharto was not all bad news, btw. He was the glue that held Indonesia together for decades. He would not tolerate any dissent, & threw Abu Bakir Bashir (responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings) into prison.

I dunno Chris - to say that Australia "pushed" for independence is a bit simplistic, what was Australia doing in the meantime? Hawke signed the Timor Treaty in 1989, the first country to recognise the conquest, Keating cosied up to him in the 90s as part of his developing ties in Asia, Howard continued on in the same vein reaping millions off of Timorese oil reserves.

And while I admittedly don't know much about Suharto's role in the region, but bolded argument could be made for Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, etc etc etc.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject:

I'm sorry, who in the West thinks Suharto is the cat's meow? That asshole has AT BEST a clearly mixed record, and I'm saying that only because I honestly don't know much about him.

chris_J2

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Suharto

I'm aware of Suharto's role in the bloody 1965 military coup. He was certainly no angel. Also watched the movie 'The year of living Dangerously', which very well captures the mood, of what it must have been like. I've also been to Indonesia 4 times & was travelling through Java, in August 1990. The mood with some people I spoke to, supported Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. An anti Western feeling existed in Indonesia, long before Bali, 2002. I'd compare Suharto, to Korean autocrat, Park Chung Hee, assassinated in 1979. Re Australian involvement in East Timors Independence, my recollection is that the JWH government did in fact send Oz troops to East Timor, & made waves, internationally, which seriously annoyed the Indonesians. I will read up on the topic, & get back to you: http://www.tim-richardson.net/misc/EastTimor.html

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject:

bacasper

Quote:

Incredibly, the article doesn't even mention East Timor.

If you are referring to the OP, it does briefly. And Pilger has extensively covered the East Timor and the Western supported genocide attempt there in great detail from the very beginning. That's what has helped make him such a highly regarded journalist and hated and feared by Western authority.

happeningthang

Quote:

And while I admittedly don't know much about Suharto's role in the region...

Kuros

Quote:

I'm saying that only because I honestly don't know much about him.

Which says a lot about how things work in the West. This monster was one of 'Ours', but at best the mainstream media will make a one line reference to his 'short comings' and that the West was attracted to his 'anti-communist' stance.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject:

cerulean808 wrote:

Roo

Quote:

t has proven that you and Pilger lie

More of your garbled nonsense. You going to edit your post now to clean up your mess like you did before? Laughing

You haven't responded to my rebuff of your lie about Saddam holding back medical and food supplies to make the USA driven sanctions look bad. Why not? Because you know you've been busted.

Instead you desperately cling to another lame excuse. If Saddam was able to smuggle enough in to keep himself and his cronies sweet, that only proves the failure of sanctions to do what the enforcers claimed justified them.

The idea that the regime could have smuggled in everything it needed to maintain a modern infrastructure for an entire country is ludicrous.

And you're still avoiding the original article and its assertions. Falling back on smear tactics instead, predictable American Crazy behaviour. Rolling Eyes

No you are busted

Quote:

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

� Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

� Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Photo 1: click here or on image for enlargement and caption

� Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

� Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

� Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

Photo 1: Kuwait authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:31 am Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

So tell us if Saddam was exporting humanitarian supplies that is sure evidence that he was keeping them from his own people isn't it?

As I already pointed out Saddam's attempts to insulate himself and his cronies does not amount to enough to be the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi kids. It was the murderous sanctions driven by the US which did it.

Your article source is the US State Department, and so unsurprisingly is full of blatant lies including the "Saddam held back humanitarian supplies" lie I've already debunked but you post it again anyway. And the claim that Saddam had WMD is there too and so on and so on... Laughing

But what else could be expected from an extremist like you but lies?

And you still haven't addressed a single point in the OP about Indonesia.

So you're busted.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:05 am Post subject:

[quote="cerulean808"]Roo

Quote:

There is now proof Saddam was holding back supplies.

and no one knows the extent of how much it was done , but we do know that Saddam got billions of dollars from smuggling.

Quote:

Your article source is the US State Department, and so unsurprisingly is full of blatant lies including the "Saddam held back humanitarian supplies" lie I've already debunked but you post it again anyway. And the claim that Saddam had WMD is there too and so on and so on... Laughing

and they made the picture too. A if you don't like then go conspiracy.

What was going in the picture? Saddam selling humanitarian supplies. That means he was holding them back no?

You debunked nothing , only that you got people from the UN who wanted to free Saddam , who were so out of what was going on that they didn't know about Saddam's billion dollar oil for food game.

Search: guardian.co.uk World news Web News

Quote:

How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals

The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes. John Sweeney, in a TV documentary to be shown tonight, says the figures are bogus. Here he reports from Iraq on his findings
Terrorism crisis - Observer special
Observer Worldview
John Sweeney
The Observer, Sunday June 23 2002 Article history � Contact us Contact usClose Report errors or inaccuracies: [email protected]
Letters for publication should be sent to: [email protected]
If you need help using the site: [email protected]
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332

This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 23 2002 . It was last updated at 02:52 on June 23 2002. The witness against the government of Iraq walked stiffly into the room, metal callipers buckled to heavy medical shoes. They had tortured her two years ago. She is now four.
Her father had been suspected of involvement in a plot to kill Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son, Uday. He fled to the north of Iraq, but the secret police, the mukhabarat, came for his wife, still in Baghdad, and tortured her. When she wouldn't break, they tortured 'Anna' in front of her.

Her father, 'Ali', is a thick-set Iraqi who worked in Saddam's privileged inner circle. He described what they did to her: 'They had a wooden stick. They would squeeze her feet and ask "Has Daddy called you?" - she understood - "Does Daddy contact you?"'

She is a victim of Saddam's brutality, proof that he is prepared to dispense violence against even his country's children. By a cruel irony, her father is also witness to Saddam's efforts to portray those same children as victims of Western sanctions, which he claims have cost hundreds of thousands of young lives.

Osama bin Laden justified the 11 September attack on America by referring to a million dead Iraqi children - killed by sanctions. But there is a belief among many Iraqis that Saddam is inventing the numbers.

Ali, outraged that Saddam's torturers may have crippled his daughter for life, spoke openly about how the regime's propaganda has faked mass baby funerals - 'evidence' of the 7,000 children under five the regime claims are being killed each month by sanctions.

Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages - 'three days', 'four days', written usefully for the English-speaking media - are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of official mourners.

There is only one problem. Because there are not enough dead babies around, the regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, in the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda.

The taxi drivers do what they are told - as everybody does in Saddam's Iraq - to their evident disgust. Before Ali defected to the north, one friend of his, a taxi driver, explained how it worked: 'I went to Najaf [a town 100 miles south of Baghdad] a couple of days ago. I brought back two bodies of children for one of the mass funerals. The smell was very strong.'

Ali continued: 'The taxi driver didn't know how long they'd been in freezers, perhaps six or seven months. The drivers would collect them from the regions and would be informed of when a mass funeral was arranged so they would be ready. Certainly, they would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for the mass processions.'

A second, Western source, went to visit visited a Baghdad hospital and, when the official Iraqi minder was absent, was taken to the mortuary. There, a doctor showed the source a number of dead babies, lying stacked in the mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.

Anna was the youngest witness to child torture by the Iraqi government in an investigation, The Mother of All Ironies, to be broadcast by BBC2's Correspondent today. It found six other adult witnesses in the Kurdish safe haven in the north - the only part of Iraq where people are free to speak.

The most chilling witness was one of Saddam's torturers, who was captured spying against the Kurds this year. 'Kamal' told us: 'They would bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied, and would start off with simple methods of torture, such as cigarette burns. Then they started using other methods of torture, more serious ones.

'They would tell the father that they'd slaughter his son, and they'd bring a bayonet out, and if the parents didn't confess they'd kill the child. 'The interrogator has the right to kill the child, or perform any other butchery, whatever's necessary.' And then Kamal chuckled.

It is an absolute of the government of Iraq - and others - that thousands of Iraqi children are dying every month because of sanctions. We managed to get a cameraman to accompany a fact-finding trip into Iraq this year by the Great Britain-Iraq Society, led by its chairman, Labour MP George Galloway.

At the start of the trip Galloway, in Iraq for the ninth time in two-and-a-half years, said: 'Every six minutes an Iraqi child will have died under the embargo. That's every six minutes of every day, of every night, every year for 12 years.'

In 1999 Unicef, in co-operation with the Iraqi government, made a retrospective projection of 500,000 excess child deaths in the 1990s. The projection is open to question. It was based on data from within a regime that tortures children with impunity. All but one of the researchers used by Unicef were employees of the Ministry of Health, according to the Lancet.

The dead babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium weapons. While no one should underestimate the lethality of these weapons and the stupidity of the US military machine, the claim does not make radiological sense. According to Dr Nick Plowman, head of clinical oncology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, the claim 'is ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'

Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman.

Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people.

� John Sweeney's report will be shown in Correspondent on BBC2 at 7.15pm today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2056376.stm

Quote:

After the Gulf War, the United Nations imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq that critics charge have led to the deaths of more than a million people -- the majority of them children. Saddam Hussein claims the deaths are in excess of one and a half million. Recent reports in leading newspapers and research studies in medical journals now suggest those numbers may be exaggerated. Still, a heated debate continues over the impact of the sanctions and over whether the United Nations and in particular the United States are responsible or whether Saddam himself has blocked humanitarian aid to further his own propaganda war.

As early as 1991, the U.N. Security Council acknowledged that sanctions were causing the Iraqi people undeniable suffering and proposed an oil-for-food humanitarian program to alleviate malnutrition and disease. The plan allowed Iraq limited sales of oil with revenues to be placed in a U.N.-controlled account for the purchase of approved food and medical supplies. Saddam rejected this program as an infringement of his sovereignty. After years of negotiations, Baghdad finally agreed to the program in 1996 with the first deliveries of aid arriving in 1997. Each year since then the Security Council has increased the Oil-for-Food program, and according to Secretary General Kofi Annan, Iraq now has sufficient resources to alleviate life-threatening disease and hunger.

So before 1996 Saddam refused to go along with the food for oil. That would make the first five or six years Saddam's fault wouldn't it?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

So what do we have?

We have evidence of Saddam selling humanitarian supplies. If he was selling them then he must have been withholding them.

We have reports by the UN that was never that vigilant in containing Saddam (UN Food for Oil) by two people who not only opposed regular sanctions but also opposed no fly zones and smart sanctions as well.

In fact international organizations were always behind the curve when it came to Iraq. Remember that in the late 1980s Saddam sucessfully hid Iraqs nuclear program from the the IAEC .

We also no that Saddam would not go along with the food for oil program until 1996 and that supplies only got into Iraq in 1997.

We also know that Saddam opposed smart sanctions.

Quote:

But what else could be expected from an extremist like you but lies?

you are an extremist and you are an apologist for ethnic cleansing and war crimes by Israel's enemies.

Quote:

And you still haven't addressed a single point in the OP about Indonesia.

It was written by Pilger so that means it will be distorted in the worst possible way to make the US look as bad as possible.

You are a loser and an apologist for any group or nation out there that is against the US.

Oh by the way is Pilger anti war? No he isn't he supported Egypt's attack on Israel in 1973.

John Pilger is a left wing fascist who supports the Iraqi insurgents.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:16 am Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

There is now proof Saddam was holding back supplies.

Liar, US State Department propaganda is not evidence, unless you also believe the US State Department propaganda about Iraq WMD is 'evidence'. And crazies like you swallowed that BS.

So you post a US State Department propaganda piece from pre 2003 full of lies about Saddam's WMD program and the US driven murderous sanctions.

Quote:

and they made the picture too. A if you don't like then go conspiracy.

What was going in the picture? Saddam selling humanitarian supplies.

The pic you desperately cling to ,as the US State Department says, shows smugglers with baby milk powder. What the US State Department doesn't want anyone to know is that the powder was useless because there was no clean drinking water in Iraq due to the deliberate destruction of the civilian water system in the fi rst Gulf War and subsequent sanctions blocking any reconstruction. The milk was infecting babies so the powder was useless - except maybe to bring in a bit of hard cash by smuggling it out. Your CIA made detailed reports about the suffering and death brought about by the deliberate destruction of the water and sewage systems.

So more BS from your weasel friends, Roo.

Quote:

Saddam rejected this program as an infringement of his sovereignty. After years of negotiations, Baghdad finally agreed to the [ oil for food ] program in 1996

More spin. The US driven sanctions were creating a serious humanitarian crisis since 1991 by blocking needed materials to rebuild the devestatedIraqi infrastructure. The US continued to block needed reconstruction and humanitarian supplies after 1996, the withholding of inoculations for babies being just one of the more notorious examples.

Even the Iraqi opposition damned the US for its murderous sanctions, Kamil Mahdi:

"[ the US was ] in effect acting to stain and paralyse all opposition to the present regime...given a discredited and moribund regime a new lease on life...[ the sanctions ] treat Iraq as a massive refugee camp to be provided with emergency relief. What Iraqis need is to be able to regenerate their economy and resume reconstruction and development. This means that essential services and the infrastructure have to be given a high priority, and the import programme has to be geared to raising domestic production."

Quote:

So what do we have?

More of your weasel lies, Roo.

The Oil for Food programme was overseen by the US via the sanctions committee, who let all the illegal kick backs slide (involving US corporations), but blocked all the desperately needed humanitarian contracts they fancied using all kinds of lame excuses.

You forgot to mention that the US authorised billions of dollars of illegal oil sales by Iraq to allies Jordan and Turkey outside of the Oil for Food programme and dwarfing the amounts involved in that programme, helping prop up Saddam financially. All the while enforcing brutal sanctions that were killing 100 000s of innocent Iraq children.

Add to that the countless billions that have vanished since the illegal and disastrous US occupation of Iraq - 20 billion or so by the defunct Coalition Provisional Authority.

So what do we have?

Roo, an American Crazie who hates truth, justice and democracy, and peddles US government propaganda.

And he still hasn't addressed a single point raised in the OP. Just ad homenim attacks in a smear campaign.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:08 am Post subject:

[quote="cerulean808"]Roo

Quote:

There is now proof Saddam was holding back supplies.

Quote:

Liar, US State Department propaganda is not evidence, unless you also believe the US State Department propaganda about Iraq WMD is 'evidence'. And crazies like you swallowed that BS.

No you are a liar I got a picture. and the ship that above was in the public records

Quote:

So you post a US State Department propaganda piece from pre 2003 full of lies about Saddam's WMD program and the US driven murderous sanctions.

I got the picture. and the ship was public record. You radical loser.

[

Quote:

It is evidence of Saddam keeping humanitarina supplies.

Second food for oil started in 1996 or even really in 1997 cause Saddam wouldn't go for them.

Quote:

So more BS from your weasel friends, Roo.

Says the creep who follows the bigot John Pilger.

Quote:

Saddam's fault for not going with the food for oil.

Allowing Saddam to go free is also a humanitarian crisis , but of course that doesn't matter to you cause like Pilger you are an apologist for anyone who is against the US.

FACT : Saddam refused to go along with food for oil until 1996.

Even the Iraqi opposition damned the US for its murderous sanctions, Kamil Mahdi:

Quote:

"[ the US was ] in effect acting to stain and paralyse all opposition to the present regime...given a discredited and moribund regime a new lease on life...[ the sanctions ] treat Iraq as a massive refugee camp to be provided with emergency relief. What Iraqis need is to be able to regenerate their economy and resume reconstruction and development. This means that essential services and the infrastructure have to be given a high priority, and the import programme has to be geared to raising domestic production."

Oh if there were no sancitons Saddam would have been overthrown. Good one . Bathists don't get over thrown.

[

Quote:

The Oil for Food programme was overseen by the US via the sanctions committee, who let all the illegal kick backs slide (involving US corporations), but blocked all the desperately needed humanitarian contracts they fancied using all kinds of lame excuses.

Didn't even start until 1996 or 1997.

And of course Iraq had open borders.

Quote:

You forgot to mention that the US authorised billions of dollars of illegal oil sales by Iraq to allies Jordan and Turkey outside of the Oil for Food programme and dwarfing the amounts involved in that programme, helping prop up Saddam financially. All the while enforcing brutal sanctions that were killing 100 000s of innocent Iraq children.

the US had no choice , it was hard enough to get anyone to go along with it.

Quote:

Add to that the countless billions that have vanished since the illegal and disastrous US occupation of Iraq - 20 billion or so by the defunct Coalition Provisional Authority.

Yes that is bad planning . What does that have to do with Iraqi smuggling.

War isn't illegal cause Saddam never gave up his war.

So what do we have?

Quote:

Roo, an American Crazie who hates truth, justice and democracy, and peddles US government propaganda.

Currlean who like Pilger is an apoloists for the war crimes of anyone who is against the US.

Again.

See the picture.

The boat is public record

Saddam refused to go along with sanctions until 1996 or 1997.

Saddam sold Iraqi humanitarian supplies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/09/24/wdrug24.xml

Quote:

A Baghdad bonanza for Saddam's rich friends
(Filed: 10/08/2001)

Quote:

Iraq's elite are thriving despite sanctions, reports Philip Smucker in Baghdad

INSIDE the Moon Restaurant, light jazz combines with the tinkle of crystal glasses meeting and silver knives clinking against plates of filet mignon. It is a relaxing air in which it is possible to forget the grim realities of Iraq.

Outside, in the baking heat, a sign painter, working for less than �1 a day, slaps the glue on the final corner of yet another signboard showing the defiant ruler blasting his favourite shotgun out over a city divided between rich and poor.

Baghdad, like the rest of Iraq, has evolved in a dozen years from an oil-rich developing city with expanding services and small business opportunities into an elitist fiefdom in which the ruler and his friends prosper while the poor live in a state of terrified subsistence.

Despite more than a decade of United Nations sanctions, the regime is in no danger of collapse, say diplomats in Baghdad. Iraq's illicit oil trade with its Arab neighbours has permitted Saddam Hussein's regime to meet the needs of the people that count the most for him - his rich internal backers.

This summer the rich can be found in swish restaurants and air-conditioned boutiques. They are riding a wave of jubilation over the six-month delay of a British and American UN Security Council proposal to tighten sanctions and limit the black-market trading.

Outside the luxurious offices of high officials, poor families pool their incomes to avoid starvation. The homeless send their children out to beg on street corners.

"We've paid with our lives for Saddam Hussein's mistakes," said a taxi driver whose father was killed in the Gulf war but avoided the draft himself. "Families that lost members have never received a dinar for their loses."

For the wealthy elite, there are no similar concerns. Despite a call by Saddam for rich women to rein in their ostentatious spending, many can be seen this summer perusing French and Italian fashions, even thumbing through racks of forbidden bikinis.

"Sanctions have been tough on us and if it weren't for the power and patience of the Iraqi people we would never have survived," said a boutique owner who gave her name as Estkal. She sells French jackets and waistcoats for �100 and Italian trouser suits for �70.

Sanctions-busting is crucial for Iraq, something underlined by the appointment of Saddam's dreaded secret police chief, his younger son Qusay, as supremo of the import-export business.

Most observers see Qusay's new role as a stepping stone to the presidency. "All you need is money and a connection to Qusay to obtain a licence," said one Iraqi official.

Saddam, using a spoils system based on al-intisaab (kinship), keeps firm control over the country's limited cash flows. This allows him to direct taxes and profits into his military machine.

"We are still creating and inventing in the military field through our own labours," boasts Oday Al-Taiy, a spokesman for Saddam. "Even the United States now admits that we pose an increasing threat through our air defences."

Senior US defence officials have admitted recently that Saddam is "still a menace". They say the Iraqi army just missed hitting an unarmed, single-seat U-2 spy plane with a missile believed to have been with extra fuel capacity and apparently fired without the use of targeting radar.

That "near miss" followed ominous Western intelligence earlier this year that Iraq had again established a chemical weapons industry.

A UN "oil for food" programme, originally intended to go hand in hand with inspections to root out weapons of mass destruction, has finally begun to provide for the most basic needs of Iraq's poorest.

For the Iraqi elite, making money is easy enough in a country where profiting from the plight of the poor is not frowned upon. They often appear to relish squeezing the downtrodden while pleading poverty for their nation.

"Many people are being forced to sell their life possessions because of these stupid sanctions," said Fadet Howli, the owner of a new antiques shop that sells everything from ancient silver swords to oriental carpets at mark-ups of 800 per cent.

It is clear, however, that Ms Howli would let the impoverished masses eat UN-baked cake - as long as her business prospers.

29 July 2001: Iraq builds 'Mother of all Battles' mosque in praise of Saddam
27 July 2001: Saddam: the bodice ripper
21 June 2001: Saddam in warning to 'wasteful' women
1 June 2001: 'Smart' Iraq sanctions plan is shelved
27 February 2001: Powell tries to halt Iraq oil flow
14 January 2001: Iraqi oil smuggled out on train via Syria
19 November 2000: Saddam stockpiling deadly chemical weapons
7 November 2000: Britain in fight to keep Iraq sanctions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/10/wirq10.xml

[

Quote:

size=18]Saddam sells UN drugs on black market
By Christina Lamb [/size]
(Filed: 24/09/2000)

CHILDREN'S medicines sent to Iraq by a British pharmaceutical company under a United Nations programme are being smuggled out of the country and sold on the black market in Lebanon to fund the lavish tastes of Saddam Hussein.

Glaxo-Wellcome has made official complaints to the Foreign Office and to the UN which oversees the Oil for Food Programme. This allows Baghdad to sell limited quantities of oil to buy vital humanitarian supplies for children, the sick and elderly.

The UN Security Council set strict controls to ensure that the medicines went to civilians and not the regime. But a spokesman for Glaxo-Wellcome told The Telegraph that the company has so far traced 15,000 units of Ventolin, part of a consignment of asthma medicine shipped to Iraq, circulating on the black market in Beirut.

The medicines had been transported to Lebanon using vehicles belonging to Iraq's ministry of transport. This indicates that the smuggling is being masterminded at the highest levels and undermines Saddam's claims that people are dying in Iraq because of shortages caused by the trade embargo imposed in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait. However, with the Iraqi dictator still firmly in power despite a decade of sanctions, Britain and America are increasingly isolated as they continue to insist on the embargo. A Foreign Office official acknowledged: "Sanctions are clearly not working but they are desperately clinging on because no one knows what else to do."

Saddam is using the supposed shortages as a propaganda tool, showing pictures of sick children and blaming the West for his people's suffering when his regime is actually smuggling out medicines that it does receive. The Ventolin is thought to be just a fraction of the UN- approved Western medicines illegally sold on by Saddam's lieutenants in a scheme run by his son Uday. The Iraqi opposition estimate that millions of pounds are being raised in this way and used to finance Saddam's regime and the activities of his intelligence services as they step up their work in London and other European capitals.

Glaxo-Wellcome has launched a campaign to warn pharmacists in Lebanon and other Arab states not to sell the smuggled goods. The company is concerned about the safety implications of prescription drugs being sold over the counter as well as being undercut in markets to which it already exports. Last week the Lebanese authorities arrested a number of those involved in selling them.

"Obviously this is a worrying development," said an official at the UN programme office for Iraq. A recent report by the office to the Security Council projected oil revenues for Iraq from December 1999 to June 2000 at �6 billion, which should be spent on health and food, and complained that medicines worth �180 million were still lying in Iraqi warehouses and had not been distributed.

However, there is now increasing pressure to end sanctions both in the Arab world and beyond. Iraqi trade with Syria, Egypt and some Gulf countries has been increasing, as has support for an end to the embargo, and there have been several reports of oil being smuggled through Turkey and the UAE.

Last week Saddam's regime celebrated the arrival of a Russian flight at the newly-reopened Baghdad international airport and Aeroflot executives are awaiting Kremlin approval for the resumption of what will be the first regular commercial flights since the Gulf war. Passengers on last week's flight included oil executives interested in making deals with Iraq.

On Friday, a French plane flew from Paris to Baghdad, carrying doctors, athletes and artists defying a request from the UN committee that upholds the sanctions regime against Iraq. The sanctions committee was informed only on Thursday night of the Friday morning flight and France refused a request to delay the flight for 12 hours so that the issue could be studied. Welcoming the flight at Baghdad, Hussein Saeed, an Iraqi Olympic committee official, said the French had taken "a big initiative in breaking the embargo".

At the same time, boosted by record oil prices and the protests in Britain and across Europe over high fuel costs, Saddam has begun an intensive lobbying campaign to weaken the sanction regime. His efforts already seem to be having some effect. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's new president, recently made a trip to Baghdad, the first elected head of state to visit since the Gulf war. Known for his anti-American rhetoric, President Chavez claimed his visit was necessary because Venezuela currently holds the presidency of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and suggested it was time to end Iraq's isolation.

23 September 2000: French jet breaks UN embargo on Baghdad
19 September 2000: Oil price new weapon for warlike Saddam
18 September 2000: Russia breaks UN sanctions
11 August 2000: Venezuela breaks Saddam ban
2 August 2000: Britain and US isolated over tottering trade embargo on Iraq
17 February 2000: Saddam to blame for sanctions, says FO
24 May 1998: Saddam tries to set up phone network with cash for sick children
21 May 1996: Iraq oil-for-food deal to benefit Gulf War victims

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/09/24/wdrug24.xml

Quote:

And he still hasn't addressed a single point raised in the OP. Just ad homenim attacks in a smear campaign.

Pilger is a left wing fascist his reporting is not honest.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

It is evidence of Saddam keeping humanitarina supplies.

Second food for oil started in 1996 or even really in 1997 cause Saddam wouldn't go for them...

ACT : Saddam refused to go along with food for oil until 1996.

The humanitarian disaster was brought about by the US driven destruction of the Iraq infrastructure, in the first US war on Iraq, which was blocked from reconstruction by US driven sanctions.

As the Iraq opposition said the US sanctions turned Iraq into one enormous refugee camp.

The US government held back humanitarian aid anyway - the most notorious being the child vaccination medicine - which they finally backed down on in the face of international outrage.

Again your US State department propaganda piece proves nothing or reports of bits and pieces turning up on the black market. That Saddam would move to insulate his regime is a given.

Quote:

Didn't even start until 1996 or 1997.

So?

Quote:

the US had no choice , it was hard enough to get anyone to go along with it.

The US government had the choice to stop its brutal sanctions, which killed 100000s of innocents but left Saddam lodged firmly in power. Instead it organised billions to flow to Saddam to lubricate his regime.

Quote:

Yes that is bad planning . What does that have to do with Iraqi smuggling.

"Bad planning" is an understatement. You tried to discredit the UN, I pointed out that it was the US that oversaw the Oil for Food kick backs and has been responsible for a far larger financial scandal.

So it's just the same old nonsense from you as you attempt to cover up US Government atrocities.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject:

[quote="cerulean808"]Roo

Quote:

The humanitarian disaster was brought about by the US driven destruction of the Iraq infrastructure, in the first US war on Iraq, which was blocked from reconstruction by US driven sanctions.

Until 1996 or 1997 Saddam would not go along with sanctions. That is his fault. and then afterwards he withheld stuff .

Both are not subjects of debate.

And Saddam is to blame for the gulf war I too.

Quote:

As the Iraq opposition said the US sanctions turned Iraq into one enormous refugee camp.

Well for the first few years Saddam would not go along with sanctions at all .

and he withheld stuff. He was selling stuff that means he withheld it.

and Saddam opposed smart sanctions too.

Quote:

The US government held back humanitarian aid anyway - the most notorious being the child vaccination medicine - which they finally backed down on in the face of international outrage.

Again your US State department propaganda piece proves nothing or reports of bits and pieces turning up on the black market. That Saddam would move to insulate his regime is a given.

I got pictures. and the ship that was caught was public record.

Tell us were the pictures faked?

Next thing you will probably tell us is that Saddam didn't gas the Kurds .

Quote:

So?

That means Saddam was responsible if Saddam would not go along until 1996 or 1997 with food for oil.

Quote:

Well they kept Saddam from attacking others.

What you think the sanctions ought not have been there in in the first place?

Quote:

The UN was supposed to watch Saddam instead they took his money.

It shows that the UN wasn't doing its job containing Saddam.

Do you have evidence that the lost Iraqi money was stolen by the US?

What the US lost in Iraqi money wasn't stolen by the US was it

Do you have any evidence that the US making money off the food for oil kick backs ? No you don't

Do you have any evidence that the US profited them.

No you don't .

What ought everyone think of those only opposed sanctions but also opposed smart sanctions and even no fly zones? Maybe they ought to think that they were soft on Saddam.

One more question why ought anyone believe stats provided by Saddam's government on the effects of sanctions?

The facts :

The US contained Saddam it wasn't on his payroll , the UN protected Saddam it was on his payroll. and then you expect everyone to just take the words of the UN who was on Saddam's payroll and who had a history of being deceived by Saddam?

Quote:

So it's just the same old nonsense from you as you attempt to cover up US Government atrocities.

Same old nonsense from you as you and Pilger cover up for Saddam's atrocities.

cerulean808

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject:

Roo

Quote:

The US contained Saddam it wasn't on his payroll , the UN protected Saddam it was on his payroll.and then you expect everyone to just take the words of the UN who was on Saddam's payroll and who had a history of being deceived by Saddam?

Lie. The UN was not an employee of Saddam, he was not the 'boss'. What a bizarre claim to make, but not surprising coming from a US Government patsy.

Who are you talk about deception? You swallowed the US Government lies about the WMD. You the one with a history of being deceived

The US allowed Saddam to smuggle oil worth billions to Syria, Jordan and Turkey, so that he could keep his regime financially lubricated. But the brutal sanctions remained in place.

Quote:

you and Pilger cover up for Saddam's atrocities.

No, Pilger has always opposed Saddam. He brought to the publics attention the Western Governments collusion with their 'asset',Saddam, in his atrocities. That's why you hate him and lie about him.

Quote:

Until 1996 or 1997 Saddam would not go along with sanctions. That is his fault. and then afterwards he withheld stuff .

Both are not subjects of debate.

The original proposed oil for food program was politicised by the US ensuring Iraq rejection, also it wasn't going to avert a humanitarian disaster, not by a long way. US annihilation of the electrical and water system in Iraq followed by sanctions brought about the humanitarian disaster.

There is no evidence Saddam "withheld stuff", smuggling occurred, his regime insulated itself against the sanctions - with billions the US Government permitted him to obtain. That items reportedly turned up on black markets in no way removes US Government culpability for the brutal sanctions it kept in place.

The US and British Governments blocked enormous amounts of humanitarian supplies and work under the oil for food program, for ever changing or absurd reasons, or just no reason at all.

Quote:

Next thing you will probably tell us is that Saddam didn't gas the Kurds .

Chemical weapons developed using all the help Saddam needed from the US Government and all the political protection he needed. Only when a tyrant starts disobeying the US Government does it hypocritically harp on about human rights abuses etc.

Quote:

What you think the sanctions ought not have been there in in the first place?

The original purpose of the sanctions was to force Saddam out of Kuwait. The US Government kept them going way beyond the original justification. In fact your government said sanctions would stay in place until Saddam was gone. Some motivation for Saddam to cooperate with sanctions then. 100000s of kids die, because of a tyrant they had no power over and was sustained in power by the Us Government for a ling time.

Quote:

The UN was supposed to watch Saddam instead they took his money.

It shows that the UN wasn't doing its job containing Saddam.

The whole operation was run by the US with UK support in the UN. They controlled what went on. Corruption that occurred, did so under their watch.

That minor corruption is dwarfed by the US corruption outside the UN oil for food program as already pointed out.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that the US making money off the food for oil kick backs ? No you don't

Many US business were implicated in the kick backs as you must know as it was well covered by mainstream news sources at the time.

Quote:

Do you have evidence that the lost Iraqi money was stolen by the US?

What the US lost in Iraqi money wasn't stolen by the US was it

Trying to dodge the point again. You try and smear the UN when it is your government which is mired in massive corruption scandals that dwarfs what occurred in the food for oil program which was a US Government operation anyway.

So what do we have?

Same old lies and twisting of the facts by Roo to white wash the US Government atrocities against the innocent people of Iraq.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe