Lifting Economic Sanctions on Iraq

[adios]

Apparently the French and the Russians (not sure about Germany) oppose the lifting of the embargo on exporting Iraqi oil i.e. unless they get their share of the post Saddam era money going into rebuild Iraq. My take is that there's no way the USA will stand for France and Russia blocking the re-initiation of uninhibited oil exports by Iraq. Hopefully this will move the USA closer to withdrawing from the UN. Apparently the USA will justify it based on international law regarding a defeated country in a war. There's no need to justify doing the right thing. I would demand that France and Russia come clean on their pre-war involvment with Saddam and what he, Saddam, promised France and Russia for championing his cause in the Security Council as a pre-cursor to any involvment with rebuilding post-war, post-Saddam Iraq.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

Since we had built a new coalition, I say that we support the countries that supported us. Anyway, Iraq now belongs to us anyway and we should do as we please. Furthermore, I believe that the only countries that should reap the benefits of this war are the ones that supported it.

Mark

[adios]

President Bush has called for a lifting of the UN sanctions against Iraq. Supposedly Russia and France two permanent members of the Security Council are opposed. It seems obvious that the right thing to do is lift the sanctions. We'll see how this develops. The troubling thing to me is the corruption of the Security Council. I don't think it's wise to be part of an organization where permanent members have veto power and their votes are for sale.

[Cyrus]

"The troubling thing to me is the corruption of the Security Council. I don't think it's wise to be part of an organization where permanent members have veto power and their votes are for sale."

For sale?? For sale to whom??

It's amazing how easily such words are bandied about!

Every nation is after its own interests. If a nation that belongs to the Security Council votes in a way that an outsider, such as us, perceives as contradicting at first glance this rule, we should be assured that there's an ulterior motive somewhere. In other words, a more valuable (for that nation) interest at stake.

I can see two exceptions to that : (1) A country led and represented by a totally corrupt dictator, such as Zaire's Mobutu used to be, or (2) A case of collective political myopia at the leadership level, a symptom rarely encountered -- but when it does, it is again more often in dictatorships.

France, Russia, Germany and the rest of the "anti-American bloc" are are most definitely not led by imbeciles; and they will ultimately follow the course that's best for their interests. Americans may disagree with these countries' position but it is certainly not the result of "corruption" or of a "sale".

[MMMMMM]

A structure which has veto options for 5 key members may encourage stone-walling by those who hope to extract unrelated concessions in exchange for their consents.

Also, regarding for sale, the votes of Cameroon, Guinea and that other country were pretty much for sale. Their votes, realistically, should not have had relevance but due to the bizarre political structure of the U.N., they had great importance. Hence they were courted, wined, dined, and possibly bribed (overtly or covertly, I don't know).

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I think this is just a political battle for the UN. The purpose of sanctions was to punish the former Iraqi regime. Well, the former regime does not exist, so sanctions should be irrelevant. I don't think the Iraqis will suffer from sanctions from France, Germany, China, or Russia. I'm pretty sure the USA, UK, and Austrailia will provide Iraq with any goods that it needs along with the other coalition countries that supported the regime change. If the UN wants to vote on it, so be it.

Mark

[adios]

Under the terms of the sanctions the UN controls the exporting of Iraqi oil. So far Russia and France seem to be indicating that they will veto any action to remove them if they don't get compensated. This is awfully suspicious behavior in light of their support for Hussein previously. The UN Security Council appears to me to be corrupted now. France and Russia have acted exactly like corrupt political entities with their votes going to the highest bidder. It's so disgusting and such a shame.

[adios]

The Security Council has been corrupted IMO.

[MMMMMM]

At least Russia has somewhat admitted that their financial interests played a part in their decisions in this matter. I forget exactly what Putin said a while back, but it was something like: "Well, we do have significant contracts with Iraq." At least that's some degree of honesty and acknowledgement that, for Russia, this is part of the equation. France on the other hand has been quite duplicitous IMO, and has appeared as eager to thwart U.S. interests/objectives as to advance its own.

[IrishHand]

Most industrialized countries have "significant contracts" with Iraq - not sure why this is a big surprise to you. That country is sitting on a vast supply of one of the world's most sought-after commodities. Which country, do you think, will be making good on the majority of their contracts now that the situation in Iraq has changed? (Not to mention the flood of new, friendly contracts which are sure to follow the occupation.)

[IrishHand]

You will note that the US was one of the initiators of the current situation regarding the exporting of US oil. I guess your point is that it's OK for Iraq to export it's oil now that we're running the show? Perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that many other nations don't share this view.

So far Russia and France seem to be indicating that they will veto any action to remove them if they don't get compensated.
(I'll be nice and not comment on the hypocrisy of supporting one nation's frequent use of their veto while calling the process corrupt when others suggest they might do the same.) France, Russia and nearly every other industrialized nation is entitled to either the fulfillment of their contracts, or compensation for the breaching thereof. Despite the rantings of some, Iraq is and has been a sovereign nation for many years now. During that time, it has entered into many, many contracts with many, many (generally industrialized) nations - the US prime among them. Certainly, it is the case that the vast majority of those contracts have been put on hold for the past several years in light of the UN sanctions (which were pretty universally supported). However, you can't say that the sanctions should be lifted without acknowledging the contract rights and property rights of those nations which didn't feel they needed to invade Iraq - unless of course you want to state that the US, in invading Iraq, assumed complete ownership of it's assets (which is another argument entirely).

This is awfully suspicious behavior in light of their support for Hussein previously.
Ah...the oft-referenced notion that opposing war is the same as supporting Hussein. Give me one piece of evidence that France, Germany or Russia supported Hussein? Yes, their governments were opposed to war - as were most citizens of this world - but I think it's fair to say that they were all opposed to Hussein and his regime or else they never would have participated in the past 12 years of crippling sanctions on Iraq at great expense to themselves.

France and Russia have acted exactly like corrupt political entities with their votes going to the highest bidder.
lol - this is my favorite. And who would the "highest bidder" be? You're talking about 2 of the bigger and most powerful nations in the world. Other than the US, UK, Germany and Japan, I'm not sure who you're suggesting would have the wherewithal to "buy' their votes.

It's so disgusting and such a shame.
An interesting view of a democratic process.

[MMMMMM]

...and please stop replying to my posts.

No, it doesn't surprise me that anyone has major contracts with Iraq. Nor does it surprise me that you erroneously presumed that such a thing would surprise me (just one example of why I do not care to discuss things with you).

It also doesn't surprise me that you continue to respond to my posts after I have made it obvious that I do not care to discuss things with you. Now: I'm asking you plainly: please don't respond to my posts anymore. I just do not care to discuss things with you: do you understand this? Just don't read my posts if you will feel an uncontrollable urge to respond. And if you continue to respond to my posts it will obvious to the regulars and moderators on this forum that it is a deliberate and low-down tactic for you to get the last word in, since I have made it a policy to not respond to your posts. This time I made an exception in order to make this request of you as plainly as possible. Hopefully you will have the simple decency to honor this request. You can now choose to be a gentleman, or a boor.

You go your way, and I'll go mine--and that's the best I think we can come up with.

[Parmenides]

I received a response.

[IrishHand]

I assumed it was a surprise to you since you felt it was duplicitous of France to not make a big issue of their contracts with Iraq.

Your opinion of me is of absolutely no consequence to me. I will continue to read threads in this forum, and if I read something that I feel like replying to, then time permitting I shall. If I were to follow your oh-so-mature solution, I'd be effectively barred from posting in any thread that you felt like posting in - and you've gotta be delusional if you think that's going to happen. Ever since you pulled your hissy fit, I've generally avoided posting in threads you've started, but I'm certainly not going to curtail my posting activities any more than that simply because you have personaly issues with me.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

You can easily participate in threads I too happen to be posting in, yet still refrain from replying to my posts. I have managed to do just that with many threads you happened to be posting in--so it really can't be all that hard. Actually, frequently having to correct errors--such as this false "either/or" extrapolation you proposed--is one reason I would rather not get involved with you at all, especially since your posts are so very often confrontational in tone and require much response to answer properly. Ay some point one istempted to say, "What's the point any longer?". I reached that point when I (and another poster) determined that some of your posts were in part motivated by a desire to troll or to argue rather than a desire to engage in meaningful exchange of ideas. If I am wrong, so be it--but I don't think the hassle is worth it anymore.

If you would show a modicum of decency by acceding to this very reasonable request, I would be most grateful.

[Cyrus]

"A structure which has veto options for 5 key members may encourage stone-walling by those who hope to extract unrelated concessions in exchange for their consents."

That structure has served us well for five decades. We are dismissing it casually and carelessly without proposing anything in its place, which speaks volumes of how much the U.S. cares about stability in the world.

As to "un-related", we already said that each nation is after its own interests: give-and-take is part of the price we pay for living together and in relative harmony. (Emphasis on "relative".) There is no point disagreeing with practices of power trading among nations, it has been and will be here forever. The U.S. routinely does it (e.g. Chechnia for Russia's acquiescence in something or other.)

Now if we wanted to be completely accurate in reflecting the current balance of power, we should have a Security Council with only one member having veto power ( and you know which member). I wonder if that wouldn't help ram the reality of American power down the world's throat any faster. (Hmmmm. I'm all for it!)

"The votes of Cameroon, Guinea and that other country were pretty much for sale. Their votes, realistically, should not have had relevance but due to the bizarre political structure of the U.N., they had great importance. Hence they were courted, wined, dined, and possibly bribed (overtly or covertly, I don't know)."

Nations will look after their interests. You can bet the house on that. It is extremely rare that a nation will vote this way or that because its representative was "dined and wined". This is way too simplistic; it applies to organisations such as the Int'l Olympic Committte, whereby each member of the Executive represents only himself. But not to the U.N.

As to the "bizarre structure" of roating U.N. members into its executive branch, the Security Council, and thus sharing (some) power and representing in it the rest of the world, the non-Permanent Members that is, well... it's an attempt at the ol' bizarre system of giving more than a few members of the public a voice, you know... kinda like... democracy?

[Cyrus]

Sending messages to a poster's employer with "warnings" about that poster's political views ?

That's just great.

The moderators of this website either condone this or are asleep at the wheel.

[MMMMMM]

"That structure has served us well for five decades. We are dismissing it casually and carelessly without proposing anything in its place, which speaks volumes of how much the U.S. cares about stability in the world."

But Cyrus, the structure of the U.N. hasn't served us well for five decades. In fact the U.N. has a long history of failing to condemn most acts of aggression it should have condemned--such as USSR in Afghanistan, China in Tibet, Arab nations against Israel (on multiple occasions)--while also failing to support military acts such as the Bosnia/Kosovo intervention. It served the people of Rwanda so badly they would probably have been better off without its "intervention." Today it overlooks the genocide in the Sudan while France works behind the scenes to facilitate the continuance of that genocide and enslavement: 1-2 million black Christians murdered by the Islamic government of Sudan in the last few years, and between 100,000-200,000 enslaved (mostly the young and females). As Colin Powell said, the Sudan is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe in the world today. Also,, I read a HUGE list of precisely which wars the U.N.has condemned and supported, and it read pretty much like the list of choice which dictators and totalitarian regimes would choose to condemn and support. The U.N. most definitely has not served the free world well, but it has done a marvelous job of giving tyrants and totalitarian regimes extra political clout.

As for rotating members in the Security Council--"sort of like a democracy"--how can the votes of non-elected members be considered anything like a democracy? That's somewhat like saying this: the U.S. has 50 states. Now imagine that 40 of those 50 states are ruled by governors who were not voted in but are instead feudal warlords and tyrants who oppress their people. The other 10 states have governors who were freely elected. Now: do you really think the interests of democracy would be served by giving all those tyrants equal votes with the elected officials? They don't even represent the people they rule. They horribly abuse the people they rule for their own profit and security. And this hypothetical scenario is not too far away from the actual state of the U.N. today, because, as Vladimir Putin says, 80% of the regimes in the world today are not elected governments. Just because they rule doesn't mean they should have a vote: their votes are non-reflective of their countries--and their votes can be counted upon to generally favor totalitarian policies, and to try to thwart democratic ideals wherever they spring up.

So sure, if you're one of the 80%--that is, one of the totalitarian regimes of the world--the U.N. has probably served you pretty damn well. But if you're one of the 20% of free nations, the U.N. probably hasn't done you any favors, and has likely cost you a bundle to boot. And if you're an average Joe, or Wang or Abdul or Pedro--who happens to live in the 80% of nations ruled by totalitarian regimes--the U.N. probably hasn't done you any favors either. It's just made it easier for your oppressors to continue ruling you with an iron fist, and with a greater political legitimacy as well.

[Cyrus]

You want peace in the world, you gotta have stability. You want stability, you gotta start from some basic premises.

One is "I don't interfere in your domestic affairs as long as you don't interfere in mine and you're not a threat to me on the basis of how you manage your house". (Like building nuclear sites on unsteady ground at our borders.) This premise is clear enough. It's the basis of sovereignty. This means that, as long as Sudan is peaceful to the other countries in the world, we more or less leave its government alone and we don't start a war to change its regime. Give or take a domestic massacre or two. Unfortunately.

Second is the issue of How Do We Go About Implementing World Stability? The U.N. was the best platform the post-WWII world could offer. A platform where all the friends and enemies could meet and try to make compromises, deals arrangements --- or agree to disagree.

Yes, it has served us well throughout its brief History! Check the record. The U.N. initiated the Korean War and brought about peace to the beligerents before world peace was endangered. This is just one instance of action. The U.N. took as much action as the Security Members allowed it to. And the SC's decisions were implemented to the degree that the two superpowers allowed it. (The record of the U.S. regarding Israel is just one glaring example of obstinacy.)

Nonetheless, the United Nations, as an institution and as an organisation, has been consistently undermined by the United States precisely because the U.N. represented a balance redress that was against American interests! Here was the strongest country in the world, ever since 1945, and that country had to sit and listen and abide by what was dictated by some Mickey Mouse, goddamn Security Council, filled with France, Britain and other has-beens (or, worse, with jokes like rotatin' Rwanda). American diplomacy could not advance through the U.N. but rather on bilateral bases, and the times of continuous military interventions abroad didn't exactly fit with a strong world forum that could effectively condemn or inhibit those interventions.

To show how contemptuous towards the U.N. it's been, the United States has been consistently late in paying its dues, to the point that basic stuff sometimes could not be done. The usual reason given was the U.N.'s alleged bureaucracy (you can't NOT have bureaucracy with a world organisation!) but the real reason was that the U.S. always wanted the U.N. to be a weak and toothless entity. An organisation that would prove time and again that without the green light by the U.S. nothing could be done at all.

Well, the time has come to reap what has been sown. And to see what the U.S. has to suggest in lieu of the U.N.

[Parmenides]

I agree. A member of the US armed forces should not publicly express opinions that support terrorist acts against an aly. Nor should a member of the US armed forces publicly criticize the POTUS during a time of a war.

Freedom of speech does not apply to the military. Civilians have 1st amendment rights. Frankly, The archive posts in question speak for themselves.

[MMMMMM]

So: in prioritizing stability so highly, the world in effect traded the human rights and lives of tens of millions for peace. During the Cold War that may have been the best of several bad answers. The U.N. created a framework for balance between the powers of communist totalitarianism and relatively free democracy. Today that framework for balance no longer serves much useful purpose.

Legitimizing the rule of non-elected tyrants and despots as "sovereignty" is precisely what the U.N. has been good at. And since their interests are generally contrary to the interests of all free peoples and free-yearning people throughout the world, of course the nation which most embodies freedom--the USA--would have found the U.N. the most distasteful.

The notion of "sovereignty" for non-elected, tyrannical governments may have served the world well when stability between the superpowers was of prime importance in avoiding nuclear disaster. However today the growing threat of nuclear holocaust lies primarily with rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. The paradigm has changed considerably. The concept of tyrants and terrorist supporters hiding behind the veil of legitimacy conferred by the concept of "sovereignty" is being questioned and in some cases discarded outright. As the USA furthers its ability to remove tyrants and their support apparatus through surgical strikes, I think we will see gradually increasing use of this power, in conjunction with movements by the people to overhrow tyrants and institute democracy anyway. The concept of "sovereignty" will eventually come to apply only to elected governments; the moral high ground will merge with the military high ground (and hopefully this power will not lead to great corruption, which potentially could be an issue).

The times, Cyrus my friend, are indeed a changin'--especially for tyrants and for the people under their thumbs, and for outdated concepts of what sort of international framework is best for the world.

We may have needed the concept of "balance" between Democracy and Communism for some decades. In the 21st century, however, we won't need the concept of "balance" between Democracy and Tyranny.

[andyfox]

"today the growing threat of nuclear holocaust lies primarily with rogue regimes and terrorist organizations."

I'm not so sure here. The last three threats of nuclear use were made by the United States (surgical strikes at Iraq's underground storage facilities); N. Korea (threatened the U.S. if we instittued economic sanctions); and Pakistan (threatened to escalate it's dispute with India). While certainly the threat of rogue regimes and/or terrorist organiations or individuals obtaining and using neclear weapons is far greater now than it was during the Cold War, there are now many countries with nuclear weapons. Russia, for example, is a mess, and who knows who will be its leader after Putin. Or who will rule Pakistan or India or Israel or China next. If indeed the United States, as you posit, continues to use its military power to remove regimes that it sees as threatening to its own well-being, I don't think it would rule out using nuclear weaponry if needed.

[MMMMMM]

Good points andy, although what I wrote regarding growing nuclear threats was tangential, not central, to the rest of my post.

[B-Man]

Andy,

While this is subject to debate, I disagree, for the same reason the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. never nuked each other--because each knew the response would be catastrophic. No sane leader would use nuclear weapons if he knew they would then be used against him and his people.

When a lunatic rules a country, that changes the equation. Rational thinking no longer controls that leader's actions. This is why North Korea is a much bigger threat than China or Russia, even though North Korea presently has only a few nukes, while China and Russia have hundreds.

Now take this to the next example, terrorists. Terrorists have nothing to lose by using WMD because they don't rule/lead/represent a state. If Al Queda sneaks a nuke into NYC, what are we going to do about it? There is no "State of Al Queda" to nuke in response. The terrorists know this, and that's the problem.

We must do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from obtaining WMD. Once they have them, it will be too late.

If proliferation of WMD is not stopped, I would say the odds are 2-1 in favor of a WMD attack on U.S. soil within the next 10 years.

P.S. I don't remember the U.S. threatening to use nukes, are you sure about that? I remember something to the effect that if we were attacked with WMD, there would be an overwhelming response, but that is not the same as threatening first use.

[ACPlayer]

Exactly the viewpoint of a head in the sands fascist! Saddam would be proud of your willingness to ignore and suppress opposing viewpoints.

The rest of us are interested in reading Irish's response to your posts. Makes for a good two sided debate. Otherwise we could just turn to Rush/Fox for propoganda!

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you really aren't aware of the context of this matter.

For months Irishhand posted deliberately troll-like responses to my posts and to the posts of others. I tried my best to answer him sincerely and thoughtfully. When it finally became clearly apparent that he was not interested in genuine debate or exchange of ideas, another long-time poster and I regretfully placed him on our "ignore lists."

There's nothing wrong with genuine debate. There is however something wrong with continually debating someone whose primary purpose is to try to inflame. And by the way, a third respected poster, who has not (yet, anyway) placed Irishhand on his ignore list, completely shares in this assessment.

[IrishHand]

That's his way of saying "I was coming out behind in the arguments and figured I'd pull the plug before I humiliated myself any further." Seriously...I think it's priceless that you need to resort to vague attempts at personal insults and attempts at validating yourself through others while continuing your "babababa not lissening to Irish babababa" campaign. If you find what I write that offensive, then feel free to ignore it. However, when you post something on a public forum, you are putting it out there for others to read and respond. I often find what you post entertaining and choose to respond lest others mistake your opinions for anything other than speculation. If you don't want me to respond to your posts, the solution is simple.

Irish

PS. If my posting was really as offensive as you claim it is, I've no doubt that those on this forum who's personal opinions I actually respect would tell me. Their feedback tends to be quite the reverse - but then again, they have the pleasure of knowing my charming self in real life. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"When a lunatic rules a country, that changes the equation. Rational thinking no longer controls that leader's actions."

This is probably not correct. Someone who comes into power and begins ruling over a whole country either gorws into the job, however clumsily, or loses the job sooner rather than later. This is a reliable, hard and fast rule. Applies even to lunatics. (I'm talking about how leaders of countries behave mainly towards other countries, and not how they treat their own people.)

"Terrorists have nothing to lose by using WMD because they don't rule/lead/represent a state."

Precisely. I agree, absolutely.

"We must do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from obtaining WMD. Once they have them, it will be too late."

I agree, absolutely. In fact, I don't think anyone on this board would disagree. I only disagree about the methods to do this.

Briefly : Wars against terrorism by definition cannot be conducted as wars between nations were conducted. To quote an eminent historian, "A world in which war against Iraq is a solution cannot be a world in which Iraq is a problem".

"I don't remember the U.S. threatening to use nukes, are you sure about that?"

Not in the recent war with Iraq, no. During the Cold War or the war in Vietnam, lots of times.

[Parmenides]

He has no decency. He favors murdering Israelis, and betraying the US government to Islamic terrorists.

He is a demon that belongs in military prison. I predict that he will soon make it there.