On July 31, a letter was published in The Herald blaming U.S. policies for children starving in Iraq (“Iraq: Children are dying due to sanctions”). I am no fan of our government, but to suggest that anyone here in the U.S. should feel the slightest pang of guilt for the death of starving children in Iraq reflects not just ignorance, but a certain malice. The letter was pure propaganda, especially since the writer simply refers to “U.S. policy” and not any specific policy.
First, it is known fact that the U.N. oil-for-food revenue program allows Iraq to sell enough oil past their sanctions in order to more than meet its peoples’ nutritional and medical needs. Initially, the program was set up so that oil was exchanged directly for food shipments but Hussein’s government was illegally selling the food for hard currency to fund its weapons programs. The U.N. gave up policing the program in 1997. So, oil is sold for currency, which is spent instead on weapons, not food. Iraq, despite sanctions, remains one of the wealthiest countries in the region.
I won’t have the work of a desperately sick tyrant like Saddam Hussein ascribed to me, or my representatives in government, without a reply.
The starving children of Iraq are the very best reason in the world for us invading Ira and for our policies there. Do you actually believe that if we invaded Iraq, that we would allow their children to starve? Did we in Germany in the 40’s? I challenge you to find one country that we defeated in battle that isn’t better off today having lost a war to us.
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
