Originally posted by: Corn
Russia might have voted or not vetoed the sanctions because that happened as USSR was disintegrating, and Yeltzin wanted to be friends with the west.
Well, that's such a convincing argument isn't it? Russia acted in our interests simply because we were becoming fast friends.........LOL. You tell an interesting fairy tale Tool.
US and UK have hijacked these sanctions from their original purpose of keeping them in place until inspections were done, to keeping them in place until Saddam was removed.
When were the sanctions "done"?..........and for a moment let's assume that the US/UK didn't "hijack" the purpose of the sanctions, would it have changed the duration as of last week?
This notion that we are invading Iraq to save them from the sanctions that we ourselves supported is absurd.
Of course it's absurd, because it's your dishonest misrepresentation of the facts that makes it absurd. We are not "saving" anyone from sanctions, we are saving them from Saddam. The sanctions allowed for humanitarian aide that Saddam decided not to disburse to his people.
Russia sold out for foreign aid.
Iraq didn't cooperate with UN because it was obvious that it wouldn't do it any good, and US would use its veto to block lifting of the sanctions while Saddam was in power. If US/UK was serious about disarming Iraq of it's WMD as opposed to removing Saddam, sanctions could have been lifted long time ago. Just lift them in stages as each stage of disarmament is verified. There has to be some reward for disarmament, or it's not going to happen.Iraq allowed inspectors in for 6 years and all they got in return was the 1998 bombing.
Why would Iraq want to undergo 11 years of humiliating UN sanctions to preserve some alledged WMD arsenal that it didn't even use when invaded by the US? You don't find this absurd?