Post here if you want to describe Kuciwalker

[giblets]

Now, what is inexcusable is our suport of Iraq and Iran according to whoever was losing, for the purpose of destabilizing the region during the early and mid 80s; however, recently our policy has changed to one of stabilization instead (thankfully).

Yes, and didn't teh US have sanctions on Iraq while thousands of children starved? So we helped create the conditions where Iraqis needed food aid, and Saddam needed money, and got upset when the food aid got diverted from its intended purpose.

[Riesstiu IV]

I'm taking it to become a good developing world farmer (and teach a little public highschool before I go to give back, again).

You don't need a degree for that. I can summarize farming for you:

Step 1: Place seeds in ground.
Step 2: Add water.
Step 3: Wait until harvest.
Step 4: Collect government subsidy.

[Ecofarm]

Yes, and didn't teh US have sanctions on Iraq while thousands of children starved? So we helped create the conditions where Iraqis needed food aid, and Saddam needed money, and got upset when the food aid got diverted from its intended purpose.

There was never a sanction that prohibited food or medicine trade.

The people starved because Saddam took the goods from 'oil for food' and sold them to pay cronies. The 'food for oil' was not a substiute for food-aid (or food-trade in the open market), but an additional method of trying to help common Iraqis - which he subverted, resulting in the direct deaths of 400,000 children, just by quantifying the food he diverted.

He took the 'oil for food' products and went to the pawn shop! For his cronies!


Note, again: there was NEVER a sanction against selling Iraq food or medicine. In fact, the US continued to give 'food-aid' for free in addition to the UN implimenting the 'oil for food' program that was vastly to his economic benefit... if he had actually distributed the products.

[giblets]

There was never a sanction that prohibited food or medicine trade.

The people starved because Saddam took the goods from 'oil for food' and sold them to pay cronies. The 'food for oil' was not a substiute for food-aid (or food-trade in the open market), but an additional method of trying to help common Iraqis - which he subverted, resulting in the direct deaths of 400,000 children, just by quantifying the food he diverted.

Wouldn't sanctions hurt Iraq's economy? Saddam definitely is more responsible for the deaths but it seems like the US messed up.

[N35t0r]

There was never a sanction that prohibited food or medicine trade.

And with severe limits to trading on everything else, where was he supposed to get the money from?

The people starved because Saddam took the goods from 'oil for food' and sold them to pay cronies. The 'food for oil' was not a substiute for food-aid (or food-trade in the open market), but an additional method of trying to help common Iraqis - which he subverted, resulting in the direct deaths of 400,000 children, just by quantifying the food he diverted.

He took the 'oil for food' products and went to the pawn shop!

If there had been no trade sanctions, I'm sure less Iraqis would have starved.

You limit the amount of foreign cash he can get, and then complain he doesn't spend it the way you like.

[Ecofarm]

The only limits placed via sanction were on selling Iraq weapons or providing Iraq with military technology.

They are an oil state, not a military one. They don't make their money off the military.


There were no sanctions for civilian stuff. It's not like Cuba.

[N35t0r]

Note, again: there was NEVER a sanction against selling Iraq food or medicine. In fact, the US continued to give 'food-aid' for free in addition to the UN implimenting the 'oil for food' program that was vastly to his economic benefit... if he had actually distributed the products.

NEWSFLASH! You actually need money to buy food and medicine on the wold market.

If you can't sell what you produce, you don't get money to actually BUY the food.

[N35t0r]

The only limits placed via sanction were on selling Iraq weapons or providing Iraq with military technology.

They are an oil state, not a military one. They don't make their money off the military.


There were no sanctions for civilian stuff.

Why the food for oil program then? If he had been free to sell oil and buy food, there would have been no use for that.

[Ecofarm]

He could have sold the oil on the open market, no sanction prevented that. The 'oil for food' program was an extra he was offered (to his economic benefit) in order to promote him spending oil on actual food.

It was just a sweet deal that he squandered. It was not a replacement for oil trade and he was never prohibited from selling oil on the open market.



Iraq was never prohibited from selling or buying anything, except military hardware and tech. You need to read the sanctions.

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuci is the guy I always confuse with Kidicious. One of them is a socialist, the other one is a born again Christian. Also, Kuci is the guy with soft waffles on his avatar.

I'm sorry what? Born again christian? Socialist? I don't think Kuciwalker is either of those. Now I'm confused.

[giblets]

http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

IIRC they never found Iraq to have completed those actions and never lifted the prohibition on importing those commodities

[Ecofarm]

Of course we never lifted the (military) sanctions, Saddam never satisfied the IAEA inspectors who, including the final brief before invasion, admitted that he was obstructionist and they did not know what was going on.

In fact, shortly after that resolution (1990), Saddam committed genocide killing 50,000 Marsh Arabs. Do you really expect us to retract military sanctions after we pass them... then he commits genocide kicks the IAEA and Human Rights inspectors out for 10 years??


After those 10 years, all he did was kill 400,000 children and further obfuscate.



But he's not to blame?!

[giblets]

Of course we never lifted the (military) sanctions, Saddam never satisfied the IAEA inspectors who, including the final brief before invasion, admitted that he was obstructionist and they did not know what was going on.

In fact, shortly after that resolution (1990), Saddam committed genocide killing 50,000 Marsh Arabs. And then he kicked out IAEA inspectors for 10 years.


Do you really expect us to retract military sanctions after we pass them and then he commits genocide kicks the inspectors out??

Are you retarded? This is about the ban on the "import of commodities and products originating in Iraq" that began with resolution 661 (Source) and continued with resolution 687 until the US invaded Iraq.

If Iraqis couldn't export, how were they going to pay for food imports?

[Riesstiu IV]

Yes, and didn't teh US have sanctions on Iraq while thousands of children starved?

That's "collateral damage" according to Ecofag.

Are you retarded?

It's fairly established that he is. It explains why he's a dirt farmer in Kenya.

[Ecofarm]

Are you retarded? This is about the ban on the "import of commodities and products originating in Iraq" that began with resolution 661 (Source) and continued with resolution 687 until the US invaded Iraq.

If Iraqis couldn't export, how were they going to pay for food imports?

You need to look at exactly what Iraq could not export. It was not a ban on Iraq exports entirely, dumbass.

It was a ban on military imports and exports. It had nothing to do with food or other commodities.


Your position is that Iraq's economy depended on the export and import of military hardware and technologies. That's retarded (or, at least, grossly misinformed).