Bush Prods U.N. to Lift Iraq Sanctions

[BaliBabyDoc]

Try this analogy . . . I have a tendency to beat the family, threaten my neighbors, and generally disregard decent human behavior. You tell the police. They investigate and say there's certainly evidence of past behaviors but cannot find any current evidence that I'm flogging the wife, kids, dog, cat, or goldfish. They do find that I control all family resources and distribute them unequally to the family members.

Mistress: Jag XK8 convertible, Platinum Visa
Wife: Toyota Solara convertible, Gold MC
1st Son: Chevy Corvette convertible, $2000/wk cash allowance
2nd Son: Mustang GT convertible, $1000/wk cash allowance
Daughter: VW Beetle convertible, $500/wk cash allowance
Step-son: Huffy Roadmaster, $100/wk allowance (charged $200/wk for room and board)

You decide that my prior adjudications have not been satisfactorily reconciled with my current (and past) behavior. You convince three out of 140 members of the Homeowners' Association to change the regime in my household. You destroy my HVAC, sever electrical/telephone lines, disconnect the water, and declare my house liberated. I'm a punk so I sneak out the back with half the contents of my safe, my mistress, and sons.

At first you deny you occupy my Pacific Heights house although you are eating out of my refrigerator, sleeping in my bed, and swimming in my pool. The step-son starts beating the wife while the daughter has gone from the top student in her prep school to a bag whore in the Mission District (for the SF readers). My out of wedlock children show up and start stealing everything that isn't nailed down and destroying what they can't remove. The Homeowners' Association volunteers to help restore order in the household and provide for vital needs. You (and your coalition of the willing) say no thanks . . . although 4 out of 5 family members beg for assistance.

After a month, you decide you ARE an occupier. Although you've made scarcely any progress towards restoring my home to its pre-liberation condition, you decide the primary impediment to a restoration effort is the ability to sell coins from my step-son's collection . . . while blissfully oblivious that the daily cost of your preparation/invasion/early occupation is 10X the gross receipts from the daily prospective sales from his collection. You insist that control of the collection is an absolute necessity for the short and long term stability of the household. The only other request you make is the ability to run the household in whatever manner you choose for as long as you see fit.

The Homeowners' Association responds with one of its bylaws, "in the unlikely event you are compelled to invade someone else's home, destroy property, and occupy it for an indeterminant amount of time . . . the Occupier is responsible for all damage inflicted on the home or its rightful residents. The Occupier is also liable for the restoration of the household to pre-invasion condition. These liabilities/responsibilities preclude the right to appropriate household resources. This prohibition exists to discourage the immoral action of destroying an abode and then compelling the inhabitants to use their own resources to rebuild . . . not to mention the incomprehensible notion that an Occupier (or agents acting on its authorita) would PROFIT from its actions."

 

[JellyBaby]

The sanctions are still in place? Holy cow! The U.N. should have moved to remove them immediately after Baghdad was taken. In truth those elitiests should never have imposed them in the first place, knowing full-well sanctions don't work against a tyrant with a firm grip on an impoverished nation.

Further, sanctions were intended to thrwart Saddum's regime. WMDs were never the real problem; Saddum's propensity to use them was. He's gone now so what on earth are the sanctions accomplishing at this point?!

Simple elistist politicking. Disgusting and appauling. This shows you exactly what the first priority of the U.N. is: the U.N. That body should be abolished or at least replaced with a tighly-scoped agency that simply works to bring sovereign states together to a common forum.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

American Journal of International Law
Provided on the outside chance somebody is interested in legal principles . . .

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
American Journal of International Law
Provided on the outside chance somebody is interested in legal principles . . .

I don't disagree with the underlying legal premise not being supportive of the actions taken by the Bush regime... in fact, I've argued against the invasion since first appearing on this forum... on the legal merits... I did not discuss, to any extent, the merits beyond those already agreed to by the UN... not inferred, but those contained in the resolutions.
Having said that, and with reference to your reasoned analogy above I propound the following: Notwithstanding a duty inferred or explicitly stated in Charters, Treaties, or any other Law or moral pontification whatsoever; The US should not burden the citizens of its country with any costs associated with the endevors undertaken thus far or in the future in either Iraq or Afganistan. There can be no justification to do so unless the Congress allocates specifically for this as it did for the initial 70 billion authorization (that I wish returned to our coffers) and then only under the provision that repayment from the assets of Iraq will be forthcomming. I, of course, don't trust our friendly Iraqi government so I am also against that notion... I would support a "Let the oil flow" concept that paid for the rebuilding as the funds arrived out of their own oil asset conversion using an international open bid scenerio.
What can be argued is; this is the price of our freedom from terrorism... bull pucky..
I am not interested in what is right legaly or morally in this Iraqi/Terrorism issue only what it will or could cost the taxpayer of this country. I say this especially because I fear that what Bush hoped to accomplish in Iraq will turn out to be a distinction with out a differnce.
The scenerio you presented a few posts ago is pretty much on target as far as analogy goes but, you left out the monies owed by Iraq on viable contracts with trading partners and or nations... I guess they should look to Saddam as they should look to you for payment on those credit cards... (gold ones at that)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Now we are cooking with crude oil. Your position would be defensible EXCEPT for the fact the US Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. Yet there is little doubt we have started 'conflicts' and occupied countries since that time. We have also followed the general tenets of the responsibilities of Occupying Powers more or less.

With Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress authorized the Executive to take whatever actions are necessary against entitities/countries associated with 9/11 (for the moment we will assume 1) Iraq is associated with 9/11

ans 2) we really give a toot about Iraqi violations of UN resolutions). While Bush led the charge, the American taxpayer is indeed on the hook for the bill in Iraq. Curiously, we've released funds to members of the coalition of the willing but cannot muster enough funds to provide for Iraqi civilians. Troops are returning home but Iraqis complain the streets are still in chaos. Aid agencies throughout the world are eager to help in all phases of the reconstruction but the US is REFUSING to allow others to help Iraq unless it is performed under explicit terms set by the DOD/WH.

Your argument would have a fighting chance if we were not acting as if we are the only responsible party.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Bush Prods U.N. to Lift Iraq Sanctions

WASHINGTON - President Bush prodded U.N. Security Council nations Wednesday to lift sanctions against Iraq, saying no country should use sanctions "to hold back the hopes of the Iraqi people."

===============

I'd say absolutely NOT.

Just as Hans Blix said: the sanctions dictate that Weapons Of Mass Destruction must be cleared. Yet the Bush regime insists they are there and will be found.

Bush is a victim of his own device; he made his bed, now he has to lie in it.

For all we know, Iraqi Baath party members/citizens may be holding onto these WMDs.

The onus is on the US, since they have appointed themselves the inspectors, to give Iraq the thumbs up to having a clean slate.

I'd love to see the day the sanctions are lifted, and the Iraqi people can be better taken care of; but until then, Bush must first come out and say Iraq is clear of WMDs, just as the sanctions stipulate.

Really, been reading over the sanctions, I can't find the part where President Bush is required to prove anything, please provide me the page number or a link, thank you.

You and everyone else want the sanctions lifted for the good of the IRaqi people, that's why France, Germany, Russia, and China have been trying for years to have them ended, it had nothing to do with the Billions Saddam was giving them. Yet now that Saddam is gone they want to hold back on lifting them, why, now the people will actually get the help they need instead of ahole squandering it all for his troops. Same with you, you are so twisted in your hatred for Bush you can rationalize the death of children from continued sanctions aimed at a GOVT no longer EVEN IN POWER. If Saddam and his boys have a few toys left, fine, they are TERRORISTS NOW, not recgonized leaders of IRAQ. WHY are ok with this, because in your sick mind it is more important to see Bush admit what you WANT to believe than to help those people.

It is the "depth" of your level of thinkng that is a danger to mankind, not Bush...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Here's the difference . . . many of the people pulling the strings in this Bush administration did NOT care about the Iraqi people in the 1980s when they overtly and covertly supported Saddam's regime. Relations were severely curtailed in the late 80s (1988-89) when greater attention was focused on Iraqi actions during (and before) the Iran-Iraq War. For the moment we will ignore Iran-Contra.

Throughout the 1990s, the US imposed crippling sanctions (although some US companies - Bechtel, Halliburton - somehow continued commercial/industrial ops in Iraq). The international community supported the goals of sanctions (behavior change/regime change) but generally opposed the US method b/c sanctions impart a far greater toll on the common people than the regime in charge. The US was nonplussed b/c sanctions against Cuba were clearly working.

Despite sanctions several prominent countries (Russia, France, China) actively worked with Iraq . . . b/c THERE'S OIL IN DEM THAR HILLS! The US was appalled that it's allies and enemies would want to trade with such a despotic regime (short memories are so wonderful in DC). Bush (the wise), Clinton, and Bush (the less wise) all insisted that sanctions remain in place until ALL WMD had been destroyed and the means of production curtailed. In the meantime, the UN Food for Oil program began to help assuage the effects of sanctions on Iraqi citizens. Although a large portion of deaths were due to water borne illness . . . the US INSISTED that material such as chlorine (necessity for water treatment) remain banned b/c

you can rationalize the death of children from continued sanctions

to achieve a stated goal.

Saddam no longer runs the country but the US doesn't either. We just happen have the largest number of troops and weapons in the country. Local governments can reconstitute with the consent (hopefully) of the people. The organization required for a national reconstruction effort requires outside assistance. It does NOT require the semi-permanent usurption of sovereign authority which the US/UK have demanded.

The UN and other NGOs have the expertise to handle such an endeavor and the UN OFP has far lower overhead than you can expect from a US DOD contractor. The US has unnecessarily extended the suffering of the Iraqi people by insisting on authority it does NOT need to assist in rebuilding the country. We have NO right to oil resources of Iraq (which the administration often said . . . well actually they said the oil belonged to the Iraqi people . . . they never said we didn't want it or have intentions on using it) so I guess there's little wonder as to why we are asking the UN to GIVE the US/UK rights over Iraqi oil.

 

[Fencer128]

Really, been reading over the sanctions, I can't find the part where President Bush is required to prove anything, please provide me the page number or a link, thank you.

You and everyone else want the sanctions lifted for the good of the IRaqi people, that's why France, Germany, Russia, and China have been trying for years to have them ended, it had nothing to do with the Billions Saddam was giving them. Yet now that Saddam is gone they want to hold back on lifting them, why, now the people will actually get the help they need instead of ahole squandering it all for his troops. Same with you, you are so twisted in your hatred for Bush you can rationalize the death of children from continued sanctions aimed at a GOVT no longer EVEN IN POWER. If Saddam and his boys have a few toys left, fine, they are TERRORISTS NOW, not recgonized leaders of IRAQ. WHY are ok with this, because in your sick mind it is more important to see Bush admit what you WANT to believe than to help those people.

It is the "depth" of your level of thinkng that is a danger to mankind, not Bush...

The ONLY (since you love your capitilising so much ) objection most people have to the lifting of sanctions is the fact that in doing so the US/UK will take absolute control of the countries revenues to do with as they see fit. The UN merely as an advisor. THAT is why people are protesting. It has NOTHING to do with denying the Iraqi people. If anything the US are playing a clever game of EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL to get their own way.

Have a LOOK at my above posts to see what I mean. I could turn the point around and say if the US CARED it would concede the contentious points in it's resolution so to let the sanctions be lifted QUICKLY. Is THAT a fair perspective?

Andy

 

[LunarRay]

My nutty sister, an MD - internal medicine, has grave doubts about the ability of the Iraqi Medical Professionals to deal with the onslaught of what no doubt will occur shortly with the absence of potable water and etc.. Her thoughts are that the number of deaths occuring just from dehydration will be exponentially greater than the worst case scenerio postulated by any one thus far... by those in the know.., if it has not already started. Of course she was just venting her frustration.... She sees this Iraqi expidition as (her words) One big cluster f*ck!

She seems to think that it is the responsibility of the US to mitagate any and all potential disease from epidemicating (whatever that means) regardless of any other issue or factor... we are there now and we must effect a sane approach to the obvious plight of the people there.

I, a number cruncher type thinker, see it as costing us big bucks... why not use the Iraqi oil for this... it is already allowed under UN Res. Why is this not already happening... I'm sorta... well... perplexed...
Are there severe health issues beyond what bits I've heard on the news? Does anyone have some links regarding this?

My even nuttier sister, a psychology prof at FSU tells me I'm myoptically focused down the narrow tunnel of my perspective... Sounds like Beamer to me.. but, I don't see this issue as some on this thread argue... I don't want to be there at all under any circumstance... I say let the world's nations gather to sort out the problem... why is that so.... inhuman... given that not much seems to be happening to stave off the major issues of the Iraqi... staying alive.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Your sister, the MD, is dead on. It is relatively cheap to prevent water borne disease compared to the expense of trying to treat illnesses like cholera. If the US had coordinated with the UN/major NGOs they could have provided convoys of potable water preferrably entering from ALL bordering countries. Iraq's water treatment facilities were in a general state of disrepair but deploying mutliple international teams would have been the best long term solution. Instead we are shuffling administrators. Our President staked our country's international moral standing on the just cause exemplified by Iraq. But our behavior in the post-conflict does not match the rhetoric.

As for the oil, I believe current production is less than 500k bpd which at current market prices is worth about $13 million dollars. It's a moot point b/c the country with the 2nd largest proven oil reserves currently has mile long gas lines and a paucity of fuel oil b/c it's refining capacity and distribution system need restoration. So the care which is vital to the short term condition of Iraq can only come from the Occupying Powers NOT Iraqi crude. Best case scenario is that Iraq can pump 2-3m bpd by the end of the year which would still gross less than $75M, but requires billions in infrastructure investment. Cheney's wet dream is the possibility that Iraq at full tap can pump 6m bpd within 2-3 years; which is worth $150m but will cost tens of billions in infrastructure upgrades.

Now if the UN turns over control of the current Iraqi balance of several billion dollars. The US/UK can use it as a down payment on rebuilding Iraq without having to tap US/UK taxpayers beyond the current war tab. Why do you think the US/UK asked for 12mo automatically renewing authority over Iraqi affairs? Although US/UK companies will have first crack at rebuilding Iraq the early work will be the most difficult with the lowest likelihood of economic (oil revenue) return for the Occupying Powers. But once the US/UK reduce Iraqi payments to formerly offended countries (like Kuwait/Iran is currently applying for reparations) and the spigot is going full bore, the US/UK will be able to rebuild Iraq AND collect an undefined tax on Iraqi crude for providing security and infrastructure improvement. Unlike South Korea we will probably expect Iraq in 2007 to be paying at least wholesale costs for the privilege of having tens of thousands US troops in their country.

 

[LunarRay]

BabyDoc,
I agree with all the action items that ought to be ongoing in Iraq... I, for the life of me, and I think I'm reasonable, don't understand why we have to be the sole source for these actions. I understand (better) the Geneva accord re: Occuping forces etc. but, and here is the catch phrase.... We interpreted the UN Resolution 1441 to mean (as stated by Straw and Rummy et. al.) that we (the "willing") had the authority to do the invasion scenerio. It was implicit. We did it so now it is the UN who ought to carry on with the thing it does best... this is where I stop evaluating the actual issues in Iraq and simply say... Yes they're in dire need so lets let the dire need folks tend to the issue. Lets get on with the business of invading other nations if that is our plan or task the intel gizmos to be in search of the moles and chipmonks that have secreted themselves into their holes or just get the heck back home and take care of business here.
It just seems to me that if all the disease that can attack does attack we will have justified the label "Devil" and put teeth in the jaws of those who would do us or our friends harm.... all because we want to run the show.... stupid!! Then there is the money issue... why should the US taxpayer foot the bill when it is "implicit" that the UN is in charge... let the World join the party...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Our President committed our country to this effort. 1441 was intentionally amorphous . . . . do you really think Syria would have signed on if they believed 1441 authorized an invasion?! Bush acted on his own authority so the responsible party is the US taxpayer. BUT . . . the industrialized world and all others who trade with despotic regimes like Saddam have a responsibility to assist. All decent peoples throughout the world have a responsibility to assist. Guess what? Many countries have volunteered services not to mention the entreaties of the UN and NGOs. The Bush administration is giving many of them the finger.

We are now on DOD Pro Consul #2 . . . Bremer will be equally ineffective if he cannot orchestrate an armada of international aid. Hence, he is doomed to fail b/c the administration is more worried about authority to do what it wants (legal control of Iraqi resources) instead of focusing on doing what it MUST (provide domestic security, potable water, food, utilities, medical care).

The networks can scarcely get enough of showing the boy who lost three limbs or the girl who was burned during attacks . . . yet the American public remains blissfully ignorant that there are THOUSANDS of Iraqi casualties (injuries not necessarily deaths) and MILLIONS who are living day to day.

 

[LunarRay]

BabyDoc,
Because you base your comments on the understanding you have of 1441 I'd agree with your position... as I stated, I have to assume it was implicit in 1441 to invade otherwise we are in violation of International law and our own... because we ratified the treaty in joining the blasted UN in the beginning... making it our law... So... if we don't impeach Bush... the only other thing I can conclude is we are legaly there... (right)... so it logically flows that it is past time to get the show going...

It sickens me to see the death and destruction... but, to see wounded kids especially depresses me.. to know it is the result of "collaterial" damage infuriates me... to know our troops dropped the bombs flows those thoughts to the doorstep at 1600 penn.

We should have gotten Saddam in other ways... pay some nutty person lots of $ to blow up Saddam and crew... or something... but, not this.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ditto . . .