Frackal said:
Hmm if this is true it's contrary to what I've read it both books and online news sources, but it's been a year or two since then so let me do some research and then get back to you on it. You may very well be right.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/causes/iraq.html
Did economic sanctions on Iraq motivate the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks?
The United Nations’ economic sanctions on Iraq are one of the grievances most frequently mentioned by Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, believed to be behind the attacks.
United Nations Security Council.
(AP Photo/David Karp)
The United States is the leading advocate of maintaining the U.N. sanctions on Iraq, and in his 1998 declaration of war on America and its allies, bin Laden insisted that a “great devastation” had been “inflicted on the Iraqi people.” In a videotape released a few weeks after September 11, bin Laden said, “Millions of innocent children are being killed in Iraq and in Palestine, and we don’t hear a word from the infidels.” U.S. officials say these figures are wildly inflated and blame Saddam Hussein’s insistence on pursuing doomsday weapons and his refusal to make full use of the humanitarian provisions in the sanctions to relieve civilian suffering. But even if they were not a cause of September 11, experts say, the sanctions—and particularly the perception that they are responsible for the misery of the Iraqi people—are a wellspring of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
Why did the United Nations impose economic sanctions on Iraq?
In August 1990, after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution under Article VII of the U.N. Charter (thereby making it binding on all U.N. members) that banned all financial transactions with Iraq, international flights to Iraq, and trade with Iraq in all goods except medicine and humanitarian food aid. In April 1991, after the Gulf War ended, the Security Council passed Resolution 687, which determined that the sanctions would continue until Iraq met several conditions, chief among them shutting down its programs to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and destroying its existing weapons of mass destruction. This resolution also required Iraq to prove to the international community that it was disarmed. However, Saddam has not complied with international supervision of this process. Experts say the Security Council has modified its sanctions plan several times to address the needs of the Iraqi people while at the same time continuing to prevent Iraq from rebuilding its military capabilities.
Do U.N. sanctions on Iraq have broad popular support around the world?
No. The economic sanctions against Iraq are highly unpopular because Baghdad has claimed that they have caused the deaths of more than a million Iraqis—a figure that U.S. officials dismiss as propaganda. Economic sanctions are widely reviled in most Arab and Muslim countries; opposition is also strong in Europe; and some American campus groups and journals have spoken out against them.
Nevertheless, there remains broad international support, at least rhetorically, for the military sanctions and financial controls on Iraq that prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military power. The United States and Great Britain have been soliciting support for a new U.N. resolution that they say would effectively lift the economic sanctions while keeping the military embargo and financial controls in place. This plan has not received significant support, however, and critics worry that since Baghdad opposes this plan it will be blocked by Iraq’s advocates in the Security Council. And since the plan makes no provision for controlling Iraq’s illegal smuggling, it might further undermine the containment of Saddam, experts say.
Has the United Nations adjusted its sanctions on Iraq to address humanitarian concerns?
Yes. Since they were first imposed, the sanctions have allowed Iraq to sell oil to buy food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods. In 1995, the Security Council established the so-called oil-for-food program, which created a mechanism for Iraq to do so. Baghdad initially refused to participate in the program, but in 1996 Iraq assented. In response to Iraqi claims that it was not being allowed to sell enough oil to meet its humanitarian needs, the limits were first raised and then eliminated altogether. All Security Council members have the ability to block imports into Iraq (to prevent the importation of military or “dual-use” items), and critics of sanctions say that American and British screening of import contracts has been unreasonably strict. However, U.N. officials, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, have repeatedly observed that Iraq has not taken full advantage of the oil-for-food program, and U.S. intelligence reports say that Iraq habitually sells humanitarian goods or converts them for military use.
Are Iraqis worse off since the sanctions were imposed?
Yes, but it’s hard to know how much of the Iraqis’ misery has been caused by the sanctions, how much by Saddam, and how much by the privation resulting from years of war, beginning in 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran.
Still, experts agree that the humanitarian situation is serious. According to a 1999 Security Council report, since the Gulf War infant mortality rates have increased in Iraq, malnutrition is rampant, and three-fifths of the population lack regular access to clean water. Richard Garfield, a Columbia University professor who studies how economic sanctions affect public health, estimates that about 350,000 more Iraqi children under the age of five died in the 1990s than would have died without the U.N. sanctions in place. On the other hand, in northern Iraq, where the United Nations supervises the distribution of goods from the oil-for-food program, infant mortality rates have fallen below pre-Gulf War levels.
Whom do sanctions supporters hold responsible for suffering in Iraq?
U.S. officials and other sanctions supporters say any responsibility for human misery in Iraq lies with Saddam Hussein, who has it in his power to end the sanctions by permitting international weapons inspections, surrendering his doomsday weapons, and meeting the other U.N. demands. Even within the framework of the sanctions, experts say, the oil-for-food program should allow Iraq to meet all of its civilian needs. The United States says that Iraq has exported humanitarian goods, including baby food, on the black market; placed large orders for medical supplies that have military applications; and converted trucks intended for transporting humanitarian supplies into military vehicles. Northern Iraq, where the United Nations administers the oil-for-food program, is markedly better off than the rest of the country, where Saddam blocks it. The aftereffects of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War also contribute to civilian suffering, sanctions supporters say.
---------------
Some of the better parts are
In August 1990, after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution under Article VII of the U.N. Charter (thereby making it binding on all U.N. members) that banned all financial transactions with Iraq, international flights to Iraq, and trade with Iraq in all goods except medicine and humanitarian food aid.
However, U.N. officials, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, have repeatedly observed that Iraq has not taken full advantage of the oil-for-food program, and U.S. intelligence reports say that Iraq habitually sells humanitarian goods or converts them for military use.
Richard Garfield, a Columbia University professor who studies how economic sanctions affect public health, estimates that about 350,000 more Iraqi children under the age of five died in the 1990s than would have died without the U.N. sanctions in place. On the other hand, in northern Iraq, where the United Nations supervises the distribution of goods from the oil-for-food program, infant mortality rates have fallen below pre-Gulf War levels.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
