You seem to imply America did something wrong by importing Iraqi oil. This is clearly incorrect as the proceeds were supposed to benefit the Iraqi people. The article does suggest America is acting against its self interest in prosecuting this war in contrast to what you and most war bashers seem to be claiming.

I find the article supports my point rather well.

"The trade is permitted under the "oil for food" deal, a humanitarianexemption from the U.N. trade embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allows Iraq to sell oil and use the proceeds, under U.N. supervision, to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, as well as spare parts to keep the oil flowing."

"The Chevrons and the Exxons of this world have to buy from the Russians, the French and the Chinese traders," said Goldstein. But, he added, "the U.S. spare parts industry is too dominant to ignore."

"According to U.S. government figures, American firms account for only a tiny share of the nearly $10 billion in trade that has been conducted under the oil-for-food exemption. U.S. citizens have received licenses to export about $15 million of oil-related spare parts and $400 million of food, medicine and water treatment equipment to Iraq, according to the State Department."

"The U.N. humanitarian program for Iraq maintains a Web site that lists contracts by number, with a brief description of the goods involved and the country--but not the company--selling them to Iraq. According to this, the United States has been responsible for only 2 out of 2,080 contracts for oil spare parts submitted to the United Nations for approval. France, China and Russia, by contrast, submitted a total of 746 contracts."

Thanks for backing up my point by documenting the economic interests of France, China and Russia in supporting the status quo.

Regards,
Mark