To be honest, I’m not looking for a debate - but I expect this thread to end up here rather quickly, so I suppose I might as well start it here.
The US is trying to lift sanctions against Iraq. These sanctions were put in place, at least partly, to force Iraq to dispose of their WMD. After 10 years and no progress, the US decided more drastic actions were called for.
The UN doubted that such existed and therefore did not support the US going to war. (This may be the crux of my confusion - perhaps I didn’t understand why the UN didn’t support the use of force. But I thought it was their doubt that such existed.)
Now the US wants to end sanctions and the UN is against doing so - and wants weopons inspectors to return to Iraq.
I’m confused. If there are no WMD, why have sanctions? If there are, why wasn’t the US supported?
Thats easy…its called “Oil for Food”. France, Germany and especially Russia made boatloads off of it, and don’t want the chuckwagon to depart just yet. America’s reasons for going to war may not of been pure (Ok, they WEREN’T pure), but Europes reasons for opposing it were definitely slimy…its called money.
Insert, "with the complete knowledge, acceptance, and explicit approval of the US, "
And the US’ reasons for opposing their post war involment is _________?
Could it be money? Or is it power? Control? Whatever it is, I’m sure it much more noble than the silly motivations of the Europeans… :rolleyes:
Khadaji, the UN believed Saddam had WoMD, UNSC resolution 1441, passed unanimously, said as much. The UN, created to maintain peace, just felt that knowlege that Saddam had WoMD was a better criteria for war than belief. Silly, isn’t it?
But you are right. If there were WoMD, then the UN wants to verify that they are no longer a threat to international security. If there were no WoMD, then the US has no basis to be controlling another (previously sovereign) nation. Quite the dilemma.
“America’s reasons for going to war may not of been pure (Ok, they WEREN’T pure), but Europes reasons for opposing it were definitely slimy…its called money.”
I recognize the slime. It’s the same slime the US crawled out of to slide into the lower pit it finds itself in.
Honestly though, how quickly should the world move to give the American forces their war booty? You do realize that’s the purpose of removing the sanctions, yes?
tagos gives the proper “legislative” reason for the hold up. The sanctions were to force UN weapons inspections. Why should the new overlords be exempt?
AZCowboy, don’t put words in MY mouth. The OP question is: If there were no WMD then why won’t the UN lift sanctions?
The answer (simplistic, assuredly) that I gave was that some of the European powers oppose it because it will cut into their money they are getting from this program. Is this NOT true? Instead of bashing America, tell me how its not true. I didn’t think this was an America bashing thread…there are plenty of THOSE on the boards if you’d like to go there and bash away…
CarnalK: No I don’t realize that. Enlighten me. And before you get all holier than thou, even if it IS true, expain how thats any worse than the Europeans using the ‘Oil for Food Program’. After all, they wouldn’t be fighting so much for it if it wasn’t quite lucrative for them…
Here I thought the sanctions were to punish the Saddam regime for its invasion of Kuait…
Not quite. The UN actually was pretty sure Saddam had NBC(Nuclear, Biological, and/or Chemical) weapons and was actively engaged with their inspectors in locating and destroying any stockpiles and dismantling production capabilities. The disagreement was primarially over the US’s insistence that the proper remedy for this violation of UN sanctions on the Iraqi regime was military action to remove the regime. The majority of the UN, and in fact a large bit of world opinion as demonstrated by the peace movements and dozens of public opinion polls, believed sanctions and inspections would be adequate to disarm Saddam, or at least believed there was no imminent threat which must be met with military force.
Everyone agreed, right from the outset, that Saddam was a bad guy who couldn’t be allowed to posess NBC weapons. The difference was in the methods the member states of the UN(particularly those with veto power on the security council) wished to employ to end the threat.
Obviously, there are WMD’s in Iraq, else the US would not have invaded. Since they have not been found and disposed of, they are still there, and pose an even larger threat to world peace than when Saddam had them neatly tucked away. It’s in all of our best interests that the Iraqi’s, and the US, focus on finding and destroying these things. To that effect, the sanctions continue to serve as a useful incentive, particularly as the administration shows signs of wanting to de-emphasize the issue.
Well, you see here, we have a slight problem. The Op makes a statement that the Sanctions were imposed because of WMD. Then, the OP points out we haven’t found any WMD. Thus- why sanction? A similar arguement can be made as follows 1. We know the moon is made out of greene cheese 2. More food will solve the world hunger problem. 3. So all we got to do is go get it.
You dudes are arguing (and correctly) that A. More food won’t nessesarily solve the problem of world hunger. and B- “Go get it” is easier than it sounds.
However, the original premise is incorrect. The primary reason for the Sanctions was to punish SH for invading Kuwait, make him pay for some of the damage to Kuwait (a certain % of the sanction oil goes to pay for this), and to slow down further military build-up (to prevent another invasion). The WMD issue was not central. True, it is a serious issue, and one which weighed against SH, but it was not the central issue.
Now, they still may find the WMD, or evidence they were destroyed after the Bush ultimatum (which is my guess- SH destroyed and/or moved them right after the ultimatum). And, yes, there are political reasons (which are connected to who is getting rich on the oil $).
However, I think that Iraq still hasn’t finished paying it’s damages for the Invasion of Kuwait- altho I could be wrong here. Still, that, along with the notion of stopping SH from buying ANY armaments- were the main reasons for the sanctions in the first place. True, one reason given for them continuing was that SH wasn’t allowing the inspections for WMD.
No progress except the destruction of at least 95% of Iraq’s WMD. What a waste.
If only Europe is in it for the money, it’s worth asking why the bids to rebuild Iraq and related things were given to only American companies (not even British) on no-bids, and why there were such links to the Bush administration. ANYWAY: the answer is really given above. The sanctions were supposed to end when UNMOVIC certified that there were no weapons. This has not happened (though they were nearly certain there were no nuclear weapons), in fact they’re not being allowed into the country. Hence some of the Security Council nations aren’t willing to lift the sanctions yet.
“The majority of the UN, and in fact a large bit of world opinion as demonstrated by the peace movements and dozens of public opinion polls, believed sanctions and inspections would be adequate to disarm Saddam, or at least believed there was no imminent threat which must be met with military force.”
You may think, Mtgman, that American Administration manipulated things to go to war (and I’d agree here), and that the Europeans rose up in rightous anger…they just wanted to give peace and the weapons inspectors a chance. I think, however, that this cuts to one of the central issues. While the American Administration DID manipulate things to go to war, the European powers opposed to the war manipulated THEIR people and public sentiment for the MONEY. France, Germany, Russia…of COURSE then wanted to drag out the weapons inspections longer, of COURSE they didn’t want war…they were making too much MONEY. And now, if the sanctions are removed, the gravy train will stop for them. Its already partially stopped, as they can no longer sell proscribed weapons to them under the table, and now you want to take away their sweet oil deal too…that really sucks. (BTW, I’m NOT saying that America is not going to step in and get a sweet deal of their own now…the question wasn’t why America WANTS the sanctions dropped…its why the UN is opposing it. No?)
I have no doubt that many of the PEOPLE in Europe opposed things from true feelings (manipulated by their governments retoric), just as I have no doubt that many sincere Americans supported the administration because they felt there were WMD, and that Saddam was a true threat to America (again, manipulated by THEIR government for the same reasons). I don’t understand why folks on this board are so quick to bash America, when the European powers DID THE SAME THING. I assume its just 'cause the Europeans opposed the war that the posters opposed. To me, its a bit hypocritical…
But thats just my opinion…I could be wrong.
-XT
p.s. All I’m asking for is some balance…is it even possible? Can you look at things and see that, just maybe, there are TWO sides?? Just maybe mind you…
What oil interests does Germany have in Iraq? I’m aware France and Russia had them. It does raise the question “couldn’t they have gotten more money by going along with the US?”
Are you saying they sold illegal weapons to Iraq? A cite MIGHT be called for.
I think the falsehood of many the US’s accusations about Iraq and the administrations obvious eagerness for war were kind of a turnoff.
Any cite I post will be a he said/she said (US claims proof, France/Russia/Germany deny). I can post one if you still want it, but I don’t see the point. Its one of those things about ‘who ya gona believe’. I have my doubts that a lot of the folks on both sides of this stupid debate (the whole Iraq mess I mean) HAVE an open mind at this point. THey know what they know, and thats it.
Myself, I’m fairly cynical about BOTH sides…and think the ‘truth’, whatever that might be, lies somewhere in the middle of the ridiculous retoric that is being spewed out…
If you want some cites, I’ll go to the trouble to find them, but I’ve told you what they’ll be…and that they’ll be worthless in the end, just like MOST cites I’ve seen about this stupid issue.
Here is the text of UNSCR 661 (the sanctions appear in 661, 665, 667, 670). It seems from the text that they were initially concerned with punishing Iraq for invading Kuwait. I would imagine that they were extended because Iraq refused to comply with the terms of its cease fire after being forced out of Kuwait, but I can’t seem to find the resolution extending the sanctions. Anyone?
Sure. I think the actions of both sides were, quite likely, motivated, at very least in part, if not wholly, by greed and/or selfish power-jockying. There are no clean hands in this. I have less exposure to the speeches and political climates of other countries so any silence on my part is the silence of one who wishes to keep from making arguements from ignorance. I do feel qualified, perhaps even obligated, to speak about the actions of the US government. I rarely speak of the motives of political actions(the whole “laws are like sausage” thing you know), but I do feel qualified to question the official statements put forth by the administration of the US. I’ve seen enough “proof” demonstrably false to make me wonder why they grasped at the straws.
If you wish to assert the UN representatives from France, Russia, Germany, et. al. acted in bad faith I’ll happily see your evidence. I have no evidence of such motives, although I would not be suprised in the least. If you want to turn this into a great big cynicism-fest and damn all politicians I’m fine with that too. As of now I saw the other factions in the UN opposing military action. That was what I was getting at. If this opposition was due to some noble purpose or self-serving, under-the-table, conflict-of-interest is up for debate if you wish to attempt to prove it either way.
The United States wanted to go to war to further their own financial and political motives.
The Europeans (and the Russians) wanted to avoid war to further their own financial and political motives.
The difference, dear xtisme, is that the European (and Russian) cource of action would not have required blowing up large chunks of real estate, killing 2,300+ Iraqi civilians and nearly 7,000 soldiers (on all sides), and giving radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists worldwide even more reasons to plot the downfall of “the Great Satan.” One can only surmise, then, that George W. Bush feels that making American petroleum companies rich is more important than keeping world peace.
The only reason to refuse to lift UN sanctions now is that matters have become a pissing contest at the UN. Of course, that means things have returned to normal at the UN.
An NPR report that I heard on the subject said that the UN does not want to lift sanctions, because that would effectively give them no say in what happens in Iraq’s rebuilding and restructuring, which, of course, is why the Bush Administration wants the sanctions lifted.
