Bush wants end to UN Sanctions of Iraq

[5_time_champ]

It is about the first time I have agreed with Shrub on anything to do with Iraq.

Ending Sanctions

Some [Council Members] hinted the demand for lifting the sanctions might be held up until their own concerns were addressed.

It seems to me the Security Council should meet in emergency session to lift the sanctions, or are some UNSC members willing to punish the Iraqi people longer than necessary out of spite for Bush thumbing his nose at the Council?

Can the rebuilding of Iraq start without the end of sanctions? Every kind of equipment from medical services to power generation can not be legally imported to Iraq as the sanctions stand right now.

• The most significant condition is that U.N. arms inspectors must first certify that Iraq has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction. *

OTOH, I guess Shrub could quickly expedite the process by declaring Iraq free of WMD.

[John_Mace]

It will be interesting to watch the French on this. The news article I read in our paper was a bit sketchy, but it looks like the French (among others) might be holding this action hostage to their being included in the rebuilding of Iraq. The oil for food program is administered by the UN, and this really looks like a power struggle.

The sanctions were against the Regime of SH. Said regime no longer exists, so the WMD issue appears to me to be a moot point. I’m not too worried about Iraqis starving-- aid can pretty much take care of that. But they will remain a begger nation until the sanctions are lifted.

Blocking the lifting of sanctions is going to look very, very, bad.

[Squink]

OTOH, I guess Shrub could quickly expedite the process by declaring Iraq free of WMD.

Saddam already tried that dodge, and look what it got him. No, if the new government of Iraq wants the sanctions lifted, it has to prove to the UN that it has no WMD’s. Otherwise we’re right back where we started from in re threat proliferation when the US leaves.

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Squink *
Saddam already tried that dodge, and look what it got him. No, if the new government of Iraq wants the sanctions lifted, it has to prove to the UN that it has no WMD’s. Otherwise we’re right back where we started from in re threat proliferation when the US leaves.

You have to be joking. The USA has the run of Iraq, puts there a government of their liking, and then invades Iraq again and kills them all because they have not proved they do not have WMD?

[Reeder]

In order for the oil barons to make their money, the sanctions must be lifted. The country isn’t secure yet. What’s the rush? There is no rebuilding going on yet. And won’t be till Iraq is secure.

[woolly]

The UN’s Iraq Programme (Oil-for-Food)
(and other humanitarian aid) should remain in place until the basic infastructure of Iraq is back in place.

Big Oil can get their slice of the spoils after that.

[John_Mace]

Wooly:

“The UN’s Iraq Programme (Oil-for-Food)
(and other humanitarian aid) should remain in place until the basic infastructure of Iraq is back in place.”

Care to offer a reason for that opinion? There’s no reason that sanctions can’t be lifted and the OfF program infrastructure be used as needed.

Lifting the sanctions would be a strong message to the Iraqis that they are being welcomed back into the world community.

[Reeder]

The oil for food program gaurantees that the money from the oil goes to the Iraqi’s and not to the oil companies. Is that a bad thing?

[woolly]

Big Oil (working out of the curiously unlooted Ministry of Oil building) while their struggling hospitals are filled with cases of gastero-enteritis and other diseases are preventable by access to basics like clean drinking water would also send a strong message to the Iraqis .

Now how did that radio address by GwB go again?“We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people” So what point in the process did the Iraqi people get reclassified as pariahs become ostracised?

[John_Mace]

Woolly:

OK. You’re concerned about “Big Oil” not getting in too soon. But surely sanctions are going to be lifted at some point. What’s your plan to keep “Big Oil” out then? If they’re not kept out, how will it be different for “Big Oil” to be there 6 months from now as opposed to 1 month from now (other than the symbolic message you alluded to in your last post)?

[Reeder]

Forgive me for jumping in…

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**Woolly:

OK. You’re concerned about “Big Oil” not getting in too soon. But surely sanctions are going to be lifted at some point. What’s your plan to keep “Big Oil” out then? If they’re not kept out, how will it be different for “Big Oil” to be there 6 months from now as opposed to 1 month from now (other than the symbolic message you alluded to in your last post)? **

Six months where the Iraqi’s get all of their money before Bush and his cronies divvy it up.

[woolly]

If Iraq basic services are functioning normally from tomorrow morning, Big Oil can start tomorrow afternoon.

I actually think it’s a rather potent symbolic message … would you agree?

[John_Mace]

Redeemer: I think the proper phrase is “Shrub and his cronies”.

Woolly: I can’t say I understand your point. It almost sounds like the “potent symbol” is the only thing you’re worried about, although I can’t believe that is true. So, I still don’t get the connection (other than symbolic) between “basic services being restored” and ending the sanctions. Would you favor ending the sanctions now if it were possible to keep “Big Oil” out for some specified period of time?

[5_time_champ]

Well, old dopey me. :smack:

Once again it would appear that Bush cares more about Iraq’s oil, and less for the Iraqi people.

With UN sanctions in place, the only Iraqi oil being sold legally is through the UN-controlled OfF programme.

So, Bush does the old “bait & switch” again, barely 2 miles from the humble abode of the 5 time champ

Bush says end sanctions now

Bush was in St Louis today, calling for the quick end to UN sanctions against Iraq. Meanwhile the US Ambassador to the UN doesn’t have a resolution for the Security Council to vote.

[woolly]

I’m of the opinion that Iraqis who see suits in a ten gallon hats being driven past on the way to stitch up oil deals whilst their people are suffering due to lack of access to basics like clean water, power, food, security etc might be more inclined to consider the US as oppressors rather than liberators and conseqently might approve of, or even take, extreme measures to redress this.

I think that might be counterproductive in the “War on Terrorism”.

[Sam_Stone]

I guess if you’re predisposed to seeing business as evil, then yeah, seeing those cigar chomping fat businessmen walking around while smoke shaped like dollar signs drifts away from their cigars would be a pretty negative thing.

But what if the Iraqis see them for what they are? Companies coming to their country with engineers and specialists to help rebuild their infrastructure so that they can sell a gazillion gallons of oil and rebuild a new, wealthy modern society? That’d be okay, wouldn’t it?

[capacitor]

Won’t be Ok if people are still starving and thirsty and oil is the only thing to drink.

[capacitor]

Won’t be Ok if people are still starving and thirsty and oil is the only thing to drink.

[Desmostylus]

There’s this report from last November about what’s to be done with the oil:

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: ‘American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.’

<snip>

Planning for Iraq’s post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq’s oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, which they argue is ‘evil’ - that is, incompatible with American interests.

Larry Lindsey, President Bush’s economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

And this today:

Eager to foster an armed Iraqi presence and build up a replacement for its own troops, the Pentagon flew about 600 FIF fighters and Chalabi to southern Iraq from the northern part of the country last week. Their sudden injection into the field there, ahead of other opposition groups, was a dramatic boost for Chalabi and his organization.

With this deployment, the Pentagon risks incurring the disapproval of other opposition groups who fear that the United States is favoring one faction over another before the mechanism to create an interim authority is in place.

U.S. Special Forces troops, who escorted the FIF fighters into Baghdad today, provided them with seized weapons and some basic military training at an abandoned air defense facility in southern Iraq.

But, of course, it was never about the oil, was it?

[Azael]

**
But what if the Iraqis see them for what they are? Companies coming to their country with engineers and specialists to help rebuild their infrastructure so that they can sell a gazillion gallons of oil and rebuild a new, wealthy modern society? That’d be okay, wouldn’t it?

**

Oh come on Sam, you know “Big Oil” has no intention of helping the Iraqis. All this business about making Iraq into a rich modern nation is just for show until the slave camps are up and running. Then us Americans can loot all of the natural resources and steal their women.