Bush Prods U.N. to Lift Iraq Sanctions

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Who were the one to stray from the topic at hand?

No, i doubt that anyone finds that ironic as i have not yet, not in one single thread strayed from the topic at hand... you probably need to educate yourself regarding trolling, which is kind of sad... A troll in need of education of his own actions...

Are you saying that I wasn't "on topic"? I do believe this thread is about Sanctions on Iraq which I most certainly have posted about.
You not straying from the thread topics? Should I go find some fine examples of your "off-topic" posts in this forum or heck - reread this thread. I mentioned sanctions in every post(in this this thread) can you say the same? Me a troll? - hardly. I'm thinking that you sir are the one who needs to "educate yourself in regards to trolling".

trolling examples:
"stupid comment of the day", "Ehhh... you are a moron, aren't you", "You have shown yourself to be a lot dumber than i thought you were... a LOT...", "You have to be extremely stupid not to get the message", "now fvck off you trolling idiot..."

Need I go find more?

I'm now done "chatting" with you, I'll leave you to your endless Bush/USA bashing. But I have just one more comment before I ignore your posts, You do realize that we agree on the lifting of Iraq's sanctions, right? No need to answer - as you stated above that you were all for lifting them. kuddos to you on that point

CkG

You missed one. Here's the complete version courtesy of SnapIT:

"the rest of your post makes you look as stupid as you probably are... now fvck off you trolling idiot... STOP TROLLING!"

Now seriously, I thought these kind of personal attacks were against forum rules as per the following from the Mod:

"3. Please respect your fellow members. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED."

Why don't you think that he can speak for himself?

You want a cookie? here ya go... *hands the moron a cookie*

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The US bitched and moaned that sanctions would work if they were more stringent . . . despite the pleas from the international community(we'll ignore the self-serving like France/Russia) noting the grossly disproportionate pain felt by the typical citizen of Iraq. That argument fell on deaf ears under the Clinton and Bush administrations. The UN program worked so well that it provided subsistence for 60% of the population plus allowed Saddam to build a network of palaces (and apparently tunnels) with cash to spare.

To claim we want sanctions lifted to "ease the pain/advance the reconstruction of Iraq" is rank hypocrisy. We want sanctions lifted so Halliburton can start selling Iraqi crude and Bush can attempt to make the reconstruction of Iraq revenue neutral when it comes to the US budget.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

To claim we want sanctions lifted to "ease the pain/advance the reconstruction of Iraq" is rank hypocrisy. We want sanctions lifted so Halliburton can start selling Iraqi crude and Bush can attempt to make the reconstruction of Iraq revenue neutral when it comes to the US budget.

Aha! Now we get to the heart of the matter. Thanks for pointing that out, BBD.

The Bush regime's ulterior motives strike yet again!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

To claim we want sanctions lifted to "ease the pain/advance the reconstruction of Iraq" is rank hypocrisy. We want sanctions lifted so Halliburton can start selling Iraqi crude and Bush can attempt to make the reconstruction of Iraq revenue neutral when it comes to the US budget.

Aha! Now we get to the heart of the matter. Thanks for pointing that out, BBD.

The Bush regime's ulterior motives strike yet again!

You are the ones that want the US out of the area, but yet you think it is bad idea to help up Iraq back up.on its feet.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

To claim we want sanctions lifted to "ease the pain/advance the reconstruction of Iraq" is rank hypocrisy. We want sanctions lifted so Halliburton can start selling Iraqi crude and Bush can attempt to make the reconstruction of Iraq revenue neutral when it comes to the US budget.

And you have facts to back up your opinion?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bush says: It's your oil.
Bush does: Before the war starts, Bush admin contracts a US corporation to put out oil fires, clean up spills, repair equipment, AND distribute Iraqi crude.

We are talking about a country with world's 2nd largest proven reserves of crude and over 1700 oilfields . . . do you really think they have no idea how to fix equipment or distribute crude? It is perfectly reasonable to plan for contingencies in a war zone but other than the total annihilation of Iraq's oil infrastructure why would you need a foreign company to control Iraqi oil?

At least three countries (France, Russia, China) have active exploration/development projects in Iraq. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to take advantage of these arrangements to rapidly ramp up production instead of providing new contracts to firms which haven't operated within the country for over a decade?

Bush says: The sanctions were against the regime not the Iraqi people.
Reality: The UN Oil for Food Program existed BECAUSE sanctions exacted such a heavy toll on the civilians.

Bush says: The UN should not delay lifting sanctions b/c the need for sanctions is gone.
Bush said earlier in response to Iraqi requests that sanctions be lifted while it undergoes inspections: Iraq must be disarmed. The inspections are not the goal, disarmament is the goal. Until that goal is reached ALL sanctions should be enforced.

Bush says: Iraq needs oil revenue to rebuild.
Bush does: DOD shuts down at least TWO working pipelines to a paying customer (Syria). Bush has suspended the law forbidding US corporations from providing vital services to Iraq including trade so why not encourage Syria to buy more oil?!

 

[UltraQuiet]

AND distribute Iraqi crude.

Doc I haven't read anything that says this has happened.

 

[Nitemare]

The UN would prefer to have more Iraqi's die under our watch so they can show how evil we are...So let them starve then plaster the dead on the front page..Headline "Evil Imperialist America kills yet another Iraqi"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

UK Guardian Jan03
Asked whether US companies would operate the oilfields, Mr Powell said: "I don't have an answer to that question. If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months.

The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed. The state and justice departments, meanwhile, have insisted that the money be held in trust.

The Wall Street Journal last week quoted oil industry officials saying that the Bush administration is eager to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry.

According to the officials, Mr Cheney's staff held a meeting in October with Exxon Mobil Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton, but both the US administration and the companies deny it.

The BP chief executive, Lord Browne, said last year he was putting pressure on Mr Bush and Tony Blair not to allow a carve-up.

DOD in their own words
Prior to the commencement of hostilities in March 2003, the Department of Defense (DoD) had planned for the repair and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. This planning encompassed the full range of activities that might need to be performed to restore or continue the operation of this industry, which is of vital importance to the health of the Iraqi economy.

DOD goes into greater detail, it is certainly possible to spin this into . . . planning for the worst . . . but until the administration asks French, Russian, and Chinese firms go to work it certainly looks like an oil grab.

 

[SuperTool]

Lifting the sanctions is the right thing to do. Too bad the US only wants to do the right thing when it suits its interests.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The UN would prefer to have more Iraqi's die under our watch so they can show how evil we are...So let them starve then plaster the dead on the front page..Headline "Evil Imperialist America kills yet another Iraqi"

:music:Trollin', trollin', trollin' . . . keep that keyboard trollin':music:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Lifting the sanctions is the right thing to do. Too bad the US only wants to do the right thing when it suits its interests.

Lifting sanctions related to humanitarian relief/civilian infrastructure should end immediately. But if the Bush administration told the truth about ANYTHING before the war, Iraq should be flooded with UN inspectors and anybody else willing to do the job. Almost everybody believes Saddam had SOMETHING. It's critical that materials and certainly not production capacity leave that country or fall into the hands of Iraqis intent on doing bad things. That's why this administration's opposition to the return of UN inspectors makes very little sense . . . assuming you care about such things as WMD.

 

[jjones]

So at this point, BBD, your opinion is backed up by heresay, more opinion, and speculation?

 

[Corn]

So at this point, BBD, your opinion is backed up by heresay, more opinion, and speculation?

You forgot to add "hatred for Bush".

 

[Gaard]

Why is Bush against UN inspectors going back in?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo
Phasing out the oil-for-food program over four months ? as the United States wants ? would end U.N. control over Iraq's oil revenues. The United States wants to use the money to pay for Iraq's reconstruction.

France, meanwhile, proposed suspending the sanctions, phasing out the oil-for-food program and having U.S. and U.N. inspectors work together. Its proposal would not lift sanctions until a legitimate Iraqi government is in place.

Under council resolutions, U.N. inspectors must certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs have been eliminated along with the long-range missiles to deliver them before sanctions can be lifted.

The United States has deployed its own inspection teams to search for weapons of mass destruction and don't want U.N. inspectors to return any time soon.

Points in previous posts which are supported by current events:

1) According to the US, UN resolutions only have meaning commensurate with the US position. If the US proposed lifting all sanctions on humanitarian aid, it would happen immediately. The US doesn't propose such an action b/c the UN would be the interim agency controling Iraqi resources NOT the US or its surrogate (place US corporation HERE). It doesn't matter that Iraq technically is not in compliance with 1441 or any of the previous resolutions . . . what matters is what the US wants . . . and we want what we want right now.

2) Bush was commited to regime change by military force in April 2002. He earlier re-affirmed Clinton-era covert ops against Saddam but put in motion the planning for an invasion of Iraq. In the early summer when it became clear Iraq was on the agenda, the White House actively advanced the notion the US did NOT need further authorization from the UN to justify attacking Iraq. In the absence of Powell, do you really believe Bush would have gone to the UN to get 1441? And if it wasn't for Blair do you think the aborted attempt at a 2nd resolution would have taken place?

3) WMD isn't a pressing problem in Iraq. According to Bush League exhortations, Saddam had amassed enough material to kill by the city. The inspectors did not find any despite allegedly useful US/UK/shhh Israel intelligence b/c they were 1) incompetent, 2) being spied on, 3) otherwise impotent just b/c they display those gay UN colours. Now that Saddam is gone and the regime is in disarray . . . the US is is no rush to find WMD. In fact, WMD is less important than getting Iraqi oil fields pumping and a US oil company to do it.

Now one more time . . . I will type slowly for the slow wits. Bush is not a bad man. Then again I don't think many people are bad so that's not an endorsement. Bush is not particularly sympathetic (and certainly not empathetic) for the suffering of others. I'm not sure Clinton was either but he was damn good at faking it.

Bush promised education reform but even his initiatives (Leave No Child Behind) are underfunded. Bush promised a tax cut . . . got one there. Bush promised a credible NMD for a reasonable price . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . . yeah we all know that was a joke. Bush promised to rebuild Afghanistan . . . but didn't recommend Congress give any money for the effort. Bush promised to become a "Uniter not a Divider" . . . uh, yeah RIGHHHT! Bush promised to continue advances in improving our environment by using LESS regulation . . . just like he did in Texas . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Now Bush is promising to end the days of evil doers, cut taxes, grow our economy, create better schools, and end our reliance on foreign oil within two decades. I give him a fighting chance at the last one but only if he learns to spell CAFE and stops driving his F-250 SuperDuty just so foreign dignitaries can ride in a truck.

In sum, I don't know the man enough to like or dislike the man. So if I cannot like or dislike him I certainly cannot love or hate him. Hell, I don't even hate people I know well enough to hate. But let there be no misunderstanding . . . I absolutely despise the MAJORITY of his policy.

NOTE: When the $430B tax package passes Congress it will essentially codify the continuing intergenerational transfer of wealth. My children and grandchildren will pay higher taxes to support the lifestyle of today's taxpayers (myself included). Furthermore, states and localities will run out of creative accounting schemes to balance their books and be relegated to cutting services (which many are doing) and raising taxes (which many are doing). The federal government is also raising fees on essentially every service it provides . . . but those aren't taxes.

 

[Fencer128]

Just seen this link to an article outlining why there is debate over lifting sanctions.

Warning! Rant!

To begin with I couldn't understand why any country would oppose the immediate lifting of sanctions. Then I read the small print. The US/UK "authority" would have autonomy over the spending of the revenues brought in after the sanctions were lifted. The UN would be "advisory" (read only listened to when it suits the US/UK).

What a farce. I see it now "do you know that by refusing to allow us to lift sanctions you're hurting little Ali?" - the wonderful emotional pressure behind the arguement to take the US/UK perspective is bound to come out sooner or later if the situation becomes intractable. IMHO if this did go ahead as outlined by the US/UK it would be the straw that broke my back. Too much power. Too much control. Too many questions of motive.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't understand why Blair would support this approach. I almost believed he supported invasion based solely on morality.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't understand why Blair would support this approach. I almost believed he supported invasion based solely on morality.

I believe he would like to see UN control. He has many interviews declaring his wish for increased UN involvement. The problem I believe is that the US is intractable in their position on this issue. Given the choice Blair went with the US option because - in his mind - it is better to take the side of the US than not over this particular issue.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If that's the case, I don't think Blair is very principled. Ending the threat of WMD from Iraq was original rationale which Blair endorsed . . . while dramatically emphasizing that regime change was not the goal. He eventually migrated to regime change but gave an impassioned, cogent rationale for doing so.

How can Blair argue that it is in the best interests of the people of Iraq that a US/UK authority have what appears to be carte blanche over Iraqi affairs?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Just seen this link to an article outlining why there is debate over lifting sanctions.

Warning! Rant!

To begin with I couldn't understand why any country would oppose the immediate lifting of sanctions. Then I read the small print. The US/UK "authority" would have autonomy over the spending of the revenues brought in after the sanctions were lifted. The UN would be "advisory" (read only listened to when it suits the US/UK).

What a farce. I see it now "do you know that by refusing to allow us to lift sanctions you're hurting little Ali?" - the wonderful emotional pressure behind the arguement to take the US/UK perspective is bound to come out sooner or later if the situation becomes intractable. IMHO if this did go ahead as outlined by the US/UK it would be the straw that broke my back. Too much power. Too much control. Too many questions of motive.

Cheers,

Andy

As predicted above:

This BBC article shows what I mean:

"An official appointed by the Americans to advise the Iraqi finance ministry, David Nummy, said the lifting of sanctions was crucial to reviving trade and restarting the economy."
"If the world cares about the basic lives of the ordinary Iraqi they will come to their aid by supporting the lifting of sanctions, allowing goods to flow into the country," he told reporters.

I completely support that sentiment - though I do have major issues with this part....

"Under the US proposals, a new body comprising the United States and key ally Britain - known as the "authority" - would decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent."
"The UN, which currently controls Iraq's oil revenue, would be confined to an advisory role."

How could the UNSC not comply and disregard their "uncaring" arguements? Maybe it was a genuine comment - but there's a lot of cynicism in me on this issue.

Cheers,

Andy

ps - Here is the link to the draft resolution.

pps - This is quite ambiguous too.

23. Endorses the exercise of the responsibilities stated in this resolution by the authority for an initial period of 12 months from the date of the adoption of this resolution, to continue thereafter as necessary unless the Security Council decides otherwise;

What I interpret this to mean is that - for whatever reason - US remains in control in Iraq for longer than 12 months from the date of adoption of this resolution, then it automatically retains control for another 12 months, etc. unless the UNSC "decides otherwise". Normally I would say ok - but don't the US have the power of veto? Couldn't they perpetually veto any attempt to "say otherwise" for any reason they like? If US intentions are benign then maybe this is ok - otherwise the potential for misuse is huge.

 

[Fencer128]

Anyone have comment on this important issue? Please see my post above.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Just seen this link to an article outlining why there is debate over lifting sanctions.

Warning! Rant!

To begin with I couldn't understand why any country would oppose the immediate lifting of sanctions. Then I read the small print. The US/UK "authority" would have autonomy over the spending of the revenues brought in after the sanctions were lifted. The UN would be "advisory" (read only listened to when it suits the US/UK).

What a farce. I see it now "do you know that by refusing to allow us to lift sanctions you're hurting little Ali?" - the wonderful emotional pressure behind the arguement to take the US/UK perspective is bound to come out sooner or later if the situation becomes intractable. IMHO if this did go ahead as outlined by the US/UK it would be the straw that broke my back. Too much power. Too much control. Too many questions of motive.

Cheers,

Andy

As predicted above:

This BBC article shows what I mean:

"An official appointed by the Americans to advise the Iraqi finance ministry, David Nummy, said the lifting of sanctions was crucial to reviving trade and restarting the economy."
"If the world cares about the basic lives of the ordinary Iraqi they will come to their aid by supporting the lifting of sanctions, allowing goods to flow into the country," he told reporters.

I completely support that sentiment - though I do have major issues with this part....

"Under the US proposals, a new body comprising the United States and key ally Britain - known as the "authority" - would decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent."
"The UN, which currently controls Iraq's oil revenue, would be confined to an advisory role."

How could the UNSC not comply and disregard their "uncaring" arguements? Maybe it was a genuine comment - but there's a lot of cynicism in me on this issue.

Cheers,

Andy

ps - Here is the link to the draft resolution.

pps - This is quite ambiguous too.

23. Endorses the exercise of the responsibilities stated in this resolution by the authority for an initial period of 12 months from the date of the adoption of this resolution, to continue thereafter as necessary unless the Security Council decides otherwise;

What I interpret this to mean is that - for whatever reason - US remains in control in Iraq for longer than 12 months from the date of adoption of this resolution, then it automatically retains control for another 12 months, etc. unless the UNSC "decides otherwise". Normally I would say ok - but don't the US have the power of veto? Couldn't they perpetually veto any attempt to "say otherwise" for any reason they like? If US intentions are benign then maybe this is ok - otherwise the potential for misuse is huge.

All i can add is a new goverment can not be built over night. When the Iraqi goverment is capable of governing itself, it will. That I have little doubt of.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Regardless of the time required to build a sustainable government in Iraq . . . why would an international body codify the ability of two countries to invade (regardless of the rationale) and then retain legal authority over a former sovereigns natural resources/government . . . (and don't forget the people) for as long as the Occupying Powers see fit?!

It's a ridiculous proposition. The US is responsible for Iraq but that responsibility evolved from the US invasion and nothing more. Therefore, the responsibility to rebuild Iraq provides no intrinsic right to control Iraqi resources.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Regardless of the time required to build a sustainable government in Iraq . . . why would an international body codify the ability of two countries to invade (regardless of the rationale) and then retain legal authority over a former sovereigns natural resources/government . . . (and don't forget the people) for as long as the Occupying Powers see fit?!

It's a ridiculous proposition. The US is responsible for Iraq but that responsibility evolved from the US invasion and nothing more. Therefore, the responsibility to rebuild Iraq provides no intrinsic right to control Iraqi resources.

How do you separate the one from the other? Does not the resources provide for the needs.. Regardless of the road taken to this point the US requires the conversion of those resources into the needs in short order or all heck will break loose... Iraq is no longer soveriegn... it is under "marshall law"...
We would have to collect from all "willing" nations to support Iraq if the converse is true or if the codification is not enacted.