I’d agree with you there Sam. The reticence being shown now by countries who have a Security Council seat to retrospectively lift the old sanctions seems to me to be far more about “feeling hurt about being excluded” than it does anything about altruistic motives towards the good people of Iraq.
me-“This has not all about hating Bush as much as that comfort you.”
I was going to preview one more time but then I got high.
Anyway, Sam if it’s all really about Saddam then answer my first hypothetical that you quoted. Namely:
"If a coup had happened and Saddam was kicked out would you have expected the sanctions to immediately drop without a UN inspections tour? "
Do you think the US military’s inspection is just as valid as a UN one (as far as removing UN sanctions is concerned)?
If the coup was by a rival faction, say a Shiite rebellion (and not just Qusay putting a bullet in the back of Dad’s head), and if that government bent over backwards to allow the U.S. to look wherever it wanted and talk to whomever it wanted, then yes. I would advocate the lifting of sanctions.
I don’t begin to even understand your argument. It’s very simple: The sanctions were in place to attempt to force cooperation. They were put into place because Saddam himself was a dangerous man who could not be trusted. Remove Saddam, and replace him with another, cooperative regime, and the ENTIRE reason for sanctions goes away. And since sanctions happen to have a terrible human cost, they should be eliminated the moment they have served their usefulness, and not one second longer. People are starving, fercrissake.
Stop thinking like a partisan for a moment and think about doing the right thing for its own sake.
Yes. Why wouldn’t it be? The U.S. and Britain were the main complainants in this case. The U.S. already has all the WMD it needs or wants. Why in the world would it try to hide Iraq’s from the U.N.? As we both know, the U.S. wants to find weapons of mass destruction more than the U.N. does right now.
I am amused by this coming from Sam.
Neither the US nor any other actor is doing anything ressembling “doing the right thing for its own sake.” That rarely if ever happens in this world of international power politics.
I am not even sure it is a good idea in the end, simple sentimentality gets one in trouble too often, for all that I would welcome a balanced mixture of enlightened self-interest and calculation.
France, however, has more or less ‘done the right thing’ and compromised, however the Russians recall getting screwed in the past, are unlikely to climb down easily from a major bargaining chip. Why should they? Will they get rewarded by an Administration that has shown little regard for keeping promises, treaties or the like and much regard for vindictiveness, punishing ‘perifidy’ for disagreeing with its trumped up pretext for going to war?
Because Sam, the sanctions and inspection regime were international and not US-UK items. Further, in regards to this ‘main complaintant’ foolishness, the fact the US and GB used NBCs (again I lay aside the scare term WMD) as a pretext rather causes some conflict of interest in the inspection, as the non-partisan might recognize.
All about credibility, you know, credibility. And given the context.
That’s rather the problem, isn’t it? The little double game that sailor has ably and logically identified.
In the end, if we are actually concerned with sanctions per effect on the Iraqis, rather than sanctions in re US power vis-a-vis rest of the world, UN in particular and Russia and France, then the French suspension is inherently reasonable. All hte more so insofar as the situation in Iraq remains exceedingly unstable.
Well, Bush started a war, arguing that the line “serious consequences” empowered him to do so. If you want to talk about legalistic hairsplitting, this should be your angle 
And I don’t really see the problem here: The sanctions are lying dormant for clearly defined periods of time.
Let’s assume the UN would lift the sanctions entirely, then what would happen if the USA misbehaves? They’d simply veto any new resolution.
So in order to protect Bush from doing something stupid, it’s only sensible to have the sanctions lie dormant - which achieves the same result as lifting them for the population of Iraq - and let him work with that.
In the end, it will do the same good for the people of Iraq you are worried about, without the possible bad things that could arise from lifting the sanctions entirely.
I’ve got no problem with a suspension of sanctions until the U.N. sees fit to eliminate them entirely. As long as needed materials for Iraq’s infrastructure get where they need to go. I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the politics of it.
Fair enough, both sides need to come to a mutual agreement, climb downs on both ends is in order.
There is no longer a soveriegn nation of Iraq, the nation formerly called “al Jumhoriya al Iraqia” is no longer in existance. The territory is currently a US/coalition possesion, and the sanctions weren’t against the USA.
This is no “regime change”- the nation known as “al Jumoriya al Iraqia” no longer exists. Did the USSR owe the debts of Tsarist Russia? Did the Continental Congress owe the debts of the Crown of England? A country may indeed have a legal international standing outside of it’s current regime- but again, the country known as “al Jumhoriya al Iraqia” no longer exists.
So, what you are saying is that USA did indeed wage a war for territoral purposes?
That’s something the government itself is not going to claim and therefore the territory is certainly not US possession. Sorry, you lucked out. Again.
Sam “I don’t begin to even understand your argument. It’s very simple: The sanctions were in place to attempt to force cooperation”
Well my argument is pretty simple. UN inspectors should verify compliance with UN resolutions. Does that sound too partisan?
Again it’s already been said better by others above. I’m all for getting Iraq built up. Would an expansion of the Oil for Food (say Oil for Water/Sewage Works) be such a bad idea? At least until we all know what the new government looks like and the final WMD status. That’s what all the killing was for right?
No. However, even though the Coalition intends upon setting up a new government ASAP , it has not done so as of yet. Currently, Iraq is then de facto a possesion of the USA- and there is a US Military Govenor in charge. The fact that we intend to “give it back” soonest does not make the fact we currently own it any different.
We also breifly were the de facto government of Afganistan, too. The USA hardly waged a war of “territorial purposes” in WWII, but we ran part of germany and most of Japan as possesions, with US Military govenors for years. Note that after we invaded Japan, and took over it’s government, neither US or International sanctions applied anymore.
It seems that the draft resolution goes a great deal beyond just “lifting the sanctions”, to handing Iraq over to the US and Britain for the indeterminate future:
Our dear Dr seems to specialize in making unfounded arguments.
Let me correct a few items:
However much one asserts that it (i) is not the position of the US (ii) is not supported in any way by international law. The US has not annexed Iraq, and Iraq continues its existance, to date, as a sovereign nation, albeit without government.
Assertion. The Iraqi republic may or not not continue, however the sovereign entity does.
Yes, they did. Of course they repudiated them much to the consernation of Western bond holders, but some portion of a settlement was later reached as I recall. Further to that, the Russian Republic, which emerged out of the ashes of the USSR had to fully assume the debts of the USSR, although there was and has been negotiation on that for relief. They’re paying them, however.
This is also the case for all successor governments in the East bloc, ex-the new emergent nations.
So, instead of rushing about like a fool asking rhetorical questions whose answers contradict your argument, you might do some reading on the issue before posting.
False analogy. The US seperated from England, which remained a sov. entity. However the change over from the original Cont. congress scheme to the modern United States entailed the assumption of the Cont. Congress’ debts, i.e. the pre-existing debts of the prior state organization.
Assert this all you want, it is a demonstrably false position, and one utterly unsupported by either international law or practice, or the US actual position. Claiming “de facto” possession and other such inanities in support of this inane argument merely highlights your ignorance on the issue.