For the purposes of determining if the sanctions should or should not be kept in place, weapons of mass destruction are irrelevant.
Why? Because the whole purpose of the sanctions was to compel the Hussein government into getting rid of them. That government no longer exists, and the occupying authority (the U.S. and Britain) is doing everything in its power to find those WMDs and dispose of them. Therefore, there is no purpose to having the sanctions.
Unless, of course, the sanctions are now being used to try and keep the U.S. from having too much control over the country. Whether for economic or political reasons. But that hurts the Iraqi people.
There is no good case to be made for keeping sanctions in place.
xtisme said " 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…"
Too holier than thou? The US buys oil through the Oil for Food program so it can’t be all that against it. I hate to ask but do you have a cite for precisely who is getting rich off this? I’m honestly curious if it’s really exclusively French,German and Russian companies.
BTW, now that their is no evil middle man, the Oil for food program should work perfectly. Or is the US planning on funneling some of the money to other uses?
No, Sam. It is highly relevant. If the WMD were found and smuggled out by the terrorists or Ba’ath Party members scavenging for them, then the US has failed remarkably in securing them. If they weren’t there in the first place, the US government just flat-out lied instead of giving a more plausible reasong to oust Sadaam.
Sam, the sanction should remain in place, or Europe might as well give up being Europe.
And just how do the existence or non-existence of sanctions change that calculus one iota? Explain to me the scenario under which keeping sanctions in place in Iraq makes the world safer or makes it any likelier that weapons of mass destruction will be found and destroyed.
Even if the U.S. lied, how is that the Iraqi people’s fault? You want to punish them because the U.S. lied to you?
The sanctions had a purpose at one time: To push Saddam’s regime away from weapons of mass destruction, or failing that, to keep the revenue out of their hands that they could use to build more. The ENTIRE rationale for sanctions vanished when Saddam’s government fell.
Unless, as I said, the sanctions are now being used to try and make it difficult for the U.S. to win the peace, in order to ‘teach them a lesson’, or if they are being used to keep the money flowing into Europe at the expense of the Iraqi people. Neither of those are reasonable or moral justifications for forcibly impoverishing a country.
"The sanctions had a purpose at one time: To push Saddam’s regime away from weapons of mass destruction, or failing that, to keep the revenue out of their hands that they could use to build more. The ENTIRE rationale for sanctions vanished when Saddam’s government fell. "
Well Sam, if we check the actual UN resolutions we will clearly see that Saddam is not mentioned.
If a coup had happened and Saddam was kicked out would you have expected the sanctions to immediately drop without a UN inspections tour? Why should we blindly trust the American puppet government not to want any bad weapons (or think they’ll act responsibly if they do get them). It is to laugh.
Now this is just ridiculous. The U.S. can make ANY of Iraq’s WMDs any time it wants to. And plenty that are much worse. As for Iraq’s nuclear program… I’m pretty sure the U.S. has figured out how to make a nuclear bomb all by itself, thank you.
These arguments just baffle me. Look: we all know you guys hate Bush. We get it. Honest. You approve of anything that makes his job tougher, or which has the promise of sticking a thumb in the eye of the United States.
And if the Iraqi people suffer for it, c’est la vie. Right?
Sam, you are never going to be able to reason with the “Bush stole the election and I hate him” crowd. If I wer you, I’d try to debate with those that can see both sides and admit when they may be wrong crowd.
From reading what you said and how some answered I don’t think those were the ones.
Agreed.
However:
Why should we trust the Iraqi people, who after all were handed their liberty on a silver platter, rather than earning it, to do the right thing with respect to whatever WMD’s remain ? The US’s poor handling of Iraqi nuclear sites shows that not only is the US soft on weapons proliferation, but that elements of the Iraqi populace are interested in profiting from the remnants of Saddam’s nuclear programs. Sanctions remain a useful tool to ensure that the US, and whatever Iraqi giovernment eventually forms, take the issue of eliminating these potential terrorist weapons seriously. As of today, we don’t even know the extent to which professional thieves, or terrorist organizations, were involved in the looting. Does the thought of 70 Kg of enriched uranium slipping over the border into e.g. Chechnya no longer concern you ?
Another reason not to lift the sanctions…and I think a very good one…is to force the U.S. to come clean. I.e., they are saying that they feel the U.S. should say, “There are no longer WMDs in Iraq.” If the U.S. says that, then the natural question is, “Well, where did they go?” This is a question that Bush is hoping the world will surely forget about. It is a question that the Administration should be forced to provide a full accounting for.
Let us note that France has offered the face-saver: “suspend” the sanctions. That is probably the best solution that is likely to come out of this, and our refusal to honor that is another example of our recent statesmanship by hissy fit. It ill behooves our pretense of a world leader.
On the contrary, Mr Stone, the original resolutions were against Iraq, not Saddam Hussein and/or his government. Hence, your argument completely missed the point.
On a practical note: If sanctions were lifted for good, what would prevent the coalition of the willing to pump out as much oil out of Iraq as they’d like?
In that light it is very wise to have certain quotas and to allow the sanctions to lie dormant for clearly defined periods of time. Time, in which Bush can prove his honesty and show a real effort to forge a democratic and independent Iraqi state.
In fact, it’s quite silly to show the UN the finger pre-war and be surprised that the UN doesn’t comply post-war.
How do you explain one and a half million people marching in London or 95% of the Spanish population being against the war? Clearly they weren’t manipulated by their governments.
Avenger, while I accept your conclusion as factual, I must criticize your premise. Government manipulation by propaganda is a perfectly reasonable supposition. Here in America, with our free press and all, we are entirely immune to such. But it happens elsewhere. Or so they tell us.
Perhaps more to the point, it failed in Spain, where the people apparently have the good sense to regard such manipulation with commendable skepticism.
Why we take pride in alligning ourselves with a government that flagrantly defies the will of its own people is another question.
Well, I am glad I am not in that group because I defended the outcome of the election.
No, you have it backwards it is not that I hate President Bush and therefore criticize what he does, it is that I hate what he does and therefor criticize it. If I thought he was doing the right thing I would not criticize him.
The problem is that you are asking me to suspend reason and logic and I am not going to do that for you or for anybody else.
The USA asserted it was invading Iraq to force it to comply with a UN resolution (as interpreted by the USA). The resolution said Iraq should disarm and allow the UN inspectors to verify this. Now that the USA is in factual control of Iraq it is still preventing the UN inspectors from doing their job and therefore Iraq is in breach of the UN resolution now as it was with Saddam Hussein. The fact that the USA is in factual control just means it is in a position to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions but that is not what the USA is doing, quite the contrary. You cannot have it both ways: either the UN has authority or it does not but you cannot pick and choose when it has authority. And if the USA has decided it will not respect the UN then it should stop playing games and stop just looking for the UN to rubberstamp whatever the USA does.
And the USA has said it will let Iraq decide their future (fat chance!). Once the USA hands control over to a national government, how exactly do we know they are in compliance? Should they vote to let the inspectors in in contradiction with US wishes? Who guarantees Iraq is in compliance after the USA leaves? (as they say they will)
Furthermore, the USA is simultaneously arguing that there are and there are not WMD in Iraq which not even God himself could do, much less Mr Bush. When it comes to justifying the war they say they are still looking for them and believe they will be found. At the same time they say they do not exist and sanctions should be lifted.
Only those who will blindly accept whatever the government does will accept the arguments. Either the UN is relevant and has authority or it does not. Either the WMD exist otr they do not. I am not going to let go of my reason. At least not yet.
Umm, no. Were the sanctions against the people residing in Iraq? No. Were they against the land itself ? No. They were against the government of Iraq (as represented by SH, but you are right, if that regime continued even though he died or something, the sanctions would still be valid). Which is now gone & dead.
Once you have such an abrupt change of governments, your old treaties & debts are no longer valid. This was made quite clear when the Communists took over Russia, and they said they no longer owed any of the Tsarist government’s old debts, nor would they honour those treaties. Of course, if the current Russian government says that the new government of Iraq still owes debts from past nations that just happned to occupy the same land- they owe the USA a shitload of cash. Can’t have it both ways, Kamerad.
Thus, those sanctions were against “al Jumhouriya al Iraqia”- which no longer exists (there never was any Nation named “Iraq”). Just like “Imperial Russia” went away, and the “USSR” replaced it. No more “al Jumhouriya al Iraqia”, no more sanctions. Nor, technically does the current/next
“government” owe any of the previous nations debts. Now- THAT is going to piss off some nations. Note that Isreal can’t sue Bagdad for what the Sumerians did 4000 years ago, either.
:rolleyes:
So- the next government of Iraq isn’t bound by any past UN resolutions, including the ones against WMD- becuase it is no longer the nation that the UN reolutions were passed against. Those resolutions & now null & void. In theory, the next government of Iraq has the same right to buy, make & own WMD as, say- Syria does. Which is to say- not too damn much, with all the US troops there. Of course, the UN can pass new resolutions if they like.
Sam Stone: “Now this is just ridiculous. The U.S. can make ANY of Iraq’s WMDs any time it wants to. And plenty that are much worse. As for Iraq’s nuclear program… I’m pretty sure the U.S. has figured out how to make a nuclear bomb all by itself, thank you.”
When did I say that the US would being stealing WMD tech from Iraq? and “Look: we all know you guys hate Bush. We get it. Honest. You approve of anything that makes his job tougher, or which has the promise of sticking a thumb in the eye of the United States.”
That’s some crazy pigeonholing of my sentiments. What I said was: We can’t trust a American puppet government to not go for/keep WMD. This has not all about hating Bush as much as that comfort you.
On reflection and preview I’m guessing you thought I meant the actual American government when I said “American puppet government”. Hmm.
But sailor described the issue to a “t” in my book so I’ll stop here.
Umm, no. You are quite mistaken. A country has a legal international standing, not its government. A country can renege on its foreign debt with or without regime change but a regime change does not mean the debt disappears or any other obligations. Iraq still exists as a country and is still bound by its obligations. The money it owed is still owed. The UN sanctions are still in place until they are lifted. Not even the USA is arguing otherwise so don’t make up arguments which don’t wash with anybody, not even those who wish it were true.
And that is exactly the type of legalistic hairsplitting that drives me up the wall. Clearly, the intention of the sanctions was to compel Saddam’s government into giving up on their WMD programs, or failing that, to keep enough revenue out of the country to prevent Saddam from building up a huge military force.
Neither of those reasons are valid any more. According to you, because the sanctions were against Iraq, they are still legally in force. That may be so. So what’s stopping the Security Council from convening and rescinding them? If they serve no purpose, and are hurting the reconstruction of Iraq, then the MORAL thing to do is to rescind them, yes?
Unless of course, you’re willing to sacrifice the people of Iraq to ‘get’ George Bush…
And I find it doubly telling that groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R., who marched to have the sanctions lifted while Saddam was in power, and the Russians, who also worked to have the sanctions lifted, are now opposing the lifting of sanctions. That’s simply disgusting.
