grienspace
Yes they where, because at the time, there was no set plans for any government in Iraq other than the US occupying forces.
After a suitable transition plan was drawn, they had no issues with lifting the ban.
You could, but I think you’d be wrong. The terrorists obviously still want to come to America and kill Americans. It’s not like all of Al Qaeda is in Iraq; there probably weren’t that many of them there in the first place. But you’re right that American soldiers over there have to worry about multiple people who want to kill them.
It’ll be a while. My burners are full @ the moment
I thought we talking about pre-war issues.
No worries, it was for my own curiosity SimonX…I figure you DO have them, and thought you had em handy. You usually do.
-XT
IIRC, my source is a book. So, i’ll have to look it up twice. I’m fascinated by the Franklin affair at the moment, though. It’s getting all of my research moments for a bit.
You may have to remind me.
Ha. That article is dated May 8, 2003, and relates to a specific US-UK plan. This one is dated April 28, 2003, and it shows that France proposed suspending sanctions.
Further, here is a transcript from a briefing from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs: France considers that the sanctions imposed on Iraq for the past ten years have become cruel, ineffective and dangerous. Cruel because the punishment falls solely on the Iraqi people and the weakest among them; ineffective since they don’t hit the regime, which isn’t being given any incentive to cooperate; dangerous since, by fuelling resentment on the part of the “embargo generation”, that generation of young people who have known only war and deprivation, they are aggravating the disintegration of Iraqi society. So they constitute an additional threat to the country’s social cohesion and thus its medium-term stability and that of the region. It should be possible to ensure the necessary regional security by means other than the embargo.