No whether or not I believe your report, yes I have a problem with reports such as this one that uses surveys instead of seeking the actual death certificates.
That's a cop out. If you at least looked at the report you would find out how accurate it actually is; that is, unless you're going to completely reject statistical analysis.
How does any of it matter? Saddam had the power to put an end to the sanctions the entire time.
Let me again quote from the von Sponeck interview:
"LE: You were commenting earlier in the evening that U.S. has continuously moved the “goal posts” on Iraq -- in other words, expanded the list of demands that Iraq must fulfil before sanctions can be lifted. Could you expand on that?
HvS: Well, goal posts have continuously been shifted. Initially, sanctions were imposed because Iraq had occupied Kuwait. When Iraq vacated Kuwait, it became an issue of disarmament. And then you had to deal with resolutions that were so intangible, so loosely defined – for examples, phrases like ‘Iraq before sanctions can be lifted must have cooperated in all respects.’ What does “in all respects” mean? It’s very open to interpretation and therefore to prolongation of sanctions if you have in mind to keep your thumb on Iraq. And this is what we have seen. So the looseness of international sanctions law, plus poorly worded resolutions -- or to paraphrase the U.S. government, resolutions with “constructive ambiguity;” I’m sorry, ambiguity yes, constructive I’m not so sure -- have facilitated this whole 11 year drama involving the Iraqi people."
In the end US officials were openly stating that no matter what the Iraq administration does, the sanctions will remain. As early as 1991 then Secretary of State James Baker stated “We are not interested in seeking a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” President Clinton stated in November 1997 that “sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Saddam Hussein] lasts.”
Now you stated the sanctions prevented medical supplies. That’s a bold face lie and you know it. Allow me, Please pay close attention to the type in BOLD...
(c) The sale or supply by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels of any commodities or products, including weapons or any other military equipment, whether or not originating in their territories but not including supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs, to any person or body in Iraq or Kuwait or to any person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Iraq or Kuwait, and any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote such sale or supply of such commodities or products;
The veto of these items was based on intent. These were the famous "dual-use" vetoes. All that had to be done to get around this was to claim that the intent for these goods wasn't humanitarian. For example, I remember that vaccinations were vetoed because it was argued that the Iraqi administration could develop these into biological weapons; this was blatantly untrue, because of the fact that it's impossible to do such a thing, but that's beside the point, as it was vetoed anyways.
From the Associated Press:
"The U.N. sanctions committee for Iraq, composed of the 15 members of the Security Council, reviews contracts for the supplies, but any member can place a contract on ``hold'' at any time for any reason.
Of the $1.78 billion worth of contracts in limbo, the United States is responsible for more than 75 percent, with Britain making up the rest, a U.N. official said.
Most of the disputed contracts are for equipment to improve Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, power grid and water sanitation infrastructure."
From
this article (Joy Gordon is professor of philosophy at Fairfield University and spent three years researching the effects of the UN sanctions programs on Iraq.):
"Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure—electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment—as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.
In response to U.S. demands, the U.N. worked with suppliers to provide the United States with detailed information about the goods and how they would be used, and repeatedly expanded its monitoring system, tracking each item from contracting through delivery and installation, ensuring that the imports are used for legitimate civilian purposes. Despite all these measures, U.S. holds actually increased. In September 2001 nearly one third of water and sanitation and one quarter of electricity and educational—supply contracts were on hold. Between the springs of 2000 and 2002, for example, holds on humanitarian goods tripled.
Among the goods that the United States blocked last winter: dialysis, dental, and fire—fighting equipment, water tankers, milk and yogurt production equipment, printing equipment for schools. The United States even blocked a contract for agricultural—bagging equipment, insisting that the U.N. first obtain documentation to “confirm that the 'manual' placement of bags around filling spouts is indeed a person placing the bag on the spout.
...
A couple of months later, a Syrian company asked the committee to approve a contract to mill flour for Iraq. Whereas Iraq ordinarily purchased food directly, in this case it was growing wheat but did not have adequate facilities to produce flour. The Russian delegate argued that, in light of the report the committee had received from the UNICEF official, and the fact that flour was an essential element of the Iraqi diet, the committee had no choice but to approve the request on humanitarian grounds. The delegate from China agreed, as did those from France and Argentina. But the U.S. representative, Eugene Young, argued that “there should be no hurry” to move on this request: the flour requirement under Security Council Resolution 986 had been met, he said; the number of holds on contracts for milling equipment was “relatively low”; and the committee should wait for the results of a study being conducted by the World Food Programme first. Ironically, he also argued against the flour—milling contract on the grounds that “the focus should be on capacity—building within the country”—even though that represented a stark reversal of U.S. policy, which consistently opposed any form of economic development within Iraq. The British delegate stalled as well, saying that he would need to see “how the request would fit into the Iraqi food programme,” and that there were still questions about transport and insurance. In the end, despite the extreme malnutrition of which the committee was aware, the U.S. delegate insisted it would be “premature” to grant the request for flour production, and the U.K. representative joined him, blocking the project from going forward."
I could go on listing more sources and more items vetoed but I think that's sufficient enough.
Now as for your claim of the US prohibiting supplies from entering Iraq the only site I could find the story was here. An anti US site.
Interesting, considering the fact that I've found numerous authoritative sources on this issue. I quoted von Sponeck again below pertaining to this issue.
As for your claims regarding the Oil for Food program, that was a huge mess. I'll quote wikipedia here, since it's the most convenient source:
The Oil-for-Food Programme started in December 1996, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997. Some 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.
The program used an escrow system: oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account possessed until 2001 by BNP Paribas bank, rather than to the Iraqi government (Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi is BNP Paribas' major single shareholder through his firm General Mediterranean Holdings). The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait and ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq, with the remainder (and majority of the revenue) available to the Iraqi government for use in purchasing regulated items.
The Iraqi government was then permitted to purchase items that were not embargoed under the economic sanctions. Certain items, such as raw foodstuffs, were expedited for immediate shipment, but requests for most items, including such simple things as pencils and folic acid, were reviewed in a process that typically took about six months before shipment was authorised. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of what their stated purpose was.
