Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should UN sanctions now be lifted against Iraq?
-
30-04-2003 11:00am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bonkey,
NOW???Biffa - I think you're the one trolling now.
Where have you been?
Biffa,
It doesn't impede those on the ground - but since there are a finite group of people trying to get funding for humanitarian work, this takes from their time and thus - bing - adversely affects humanitarian aid. Besides, it eats newstime and since politicians in general fund that which gets media time...But you've already accepted that calling for sanctions to be lifted in no way impedes any of this. What are you on about?
Speaking of, have you been reading about Afghanistan lately?
Yes, because there are no reporters, no public leaders, no protests, no mass meetings, nothing like that in Iraq :rolleyes:How are Iraqis supposed to call for sanctions to be lifted? They have little or no access to media, no public representatives.
If we're going to debate this, please use the correct terms. I'm anti-Bush, not anti-US. As I said earlier, and repeatedly:That's because of your virulent anti-US bias.
What's been taken for anti-americanism is in fact disgust at, and loathing of, the actions of some (hopefully a small minority) of the US military, most of the US media, and just about all of the Bush administration.
It depends on what good lifting them will do, and who will benefit. I have no interest in lifting sanctions to pay Haliburton. If lifting them will benefit some 7-year-old iraqi kid, brilliant, throw the damn things away. But if it will benefit Garner or Chalabli - fcuk that, leave them there.How the hell can anyone be against lifting sanctions?
Now if they were causing deaths, that's one thing - but in Northern Iraq they didn't because Hussein couldn't corrupt the program there. Since he's gone, I don't see why the corruption need remain. Or is that beyond the ability of the US Biffa?
I heard that about Bosnia. I actually agreed, though uneasily. More fool me. The US went in, a 3-day campaign became a 78-day one, the ethnic cleansing didn't stop, it accelerated. Civilian targets were attacked, innocent people died, and at the end of it all, Milosovich was still in charge. In fact, he was only finally dealt with by his own people. And then the US went and vetoed leaving UN peacekeeping troops in bosnia.Anti-war = anti-human rights for Iraqis. There was no other way for them to win their freedom.
Care to ask why I was against this war? Precedence.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Careful now. Which "certain factions" ???The liberty to do what? Do I support the liberty of certain factions within Iraq to use violence in order to seize power for themselves? No.
bonkey's answered this quite elequently, making all the points I would have (and one or two I hadn't considered).All it takes to lift sanctions is a vote in the Security Council. Why would this require the time of humanitarian groups?
...
I don’t see how getting sanctions lifted would require any funding at all.
*sigh*Speaking of, have you been reading about Afghanistan lately?
Yes. What’s your point?
*bangs keyboard on wall*
Afghanistan. Linked to 9/11 without stated proof. Invaded unilaterally. Despotic regieme toppled (hooray!). 3500 civilians killed. No compensation for families. Friendly fire. Afterwards, targeted individual is nowhere to be found.
Now that's fairly similar to Iraq.
Aftermath of Afghanistan:
OBL alive and working.
Taliban now taking power again.
US-friendly warlord put in power and then financially abandoned despite public promises not to forget the Afghan people.
Women's rights, journalism, democracy - still under threat in Afghanistan.
My point from this example? This US administration does not have a good track record at doing what it is now saying it will do. We therefore have no reason to trust in it's motivations or abilities.Well I would imagine that access to these is extremely limited for most Iraqis.
Really? Any Iraqi that speaks english is being sought out by journalists right now, and a few that don't. And the rest are being interviewed by arabic media. Iraq is the number one story right now.I mean, what are you expecting, that there would be mass rallies across the country demanding an end to sanctions, even though the US has already begun the process of getting them dropped?
No, actually I was expecting mass rallies to get the US out of Iraq...
Hmm. Odd that.Why on earth would Iraqis want sanctions to remain in place?
To preserve their resources until they get back on their feet again? Remember, those sanctions are there to stop a military build-up. It would be advantageous to review the sanctions in the interests of humanitarian aid, but to remove them wouldn't do any good.Does that also mean you’re anti the majority of Americans who support Bush?
Put it this way. I love David Norris's politics and his political career's record - but I wouldn't take long hot showers with the guy.
ie. I'm anti the bush supporters who rabidly support him even when informed as to the results of his policies. Those that voted for him on the basis of his promised policies, well, more fool them, but I don't see the need to have them shot. I might try selling them a few bridges thoughAnyway, whether you’re anti-Bush or anti-American or neither, the point is that I don’t believe you are judging American motives and actions in any way objectively. (I’m sure someone will point out that I’m not being objective either as I’m pro-Bush which is fair enough, but there is a difference in degree here. Seeing an oil conspiracy even behind the lifting of sanctions is just ridiculous).
"Conspiracy". Ahh. I love that word, you can categorise and ridicule people with it in one shot.
No, there isn't an oil conspiracy behind raising sanctions. It's a power play, nothing more. The fact that it would do the US a lot of good and the Iraqis no real good at all (and in fact some harm) is more than enough to oppose the move though.
And thanks for assuming my rabidity. Facts however, don't support that viewpoint. I've read boths sides, thought about it rather a lot, and come to the conclusion that I cannot support Bush's actions in this area because they conflict with my morals rather extensively, not to mention international law.Who in Iraq do you imagine would be worse off as a result of lifting sanctions, apart from corrupt officials who were making huge amounts of money through smuggling and abuse of the oil-for-food program?
The US says they've eliminated the corruption problem (as the officals were in the Ba'ath party and that's supposedly smashed). So why do you have to raise sanctions?
They don't have to bid. They didn't the first time. In point of fact, the company that was hired last time to put out the oil well fires put in competitive bids to do the same job this time, and were stonewalled for a month before haliburton was given the contract without tendering. Plus, have you seen how much that contract was worth? We're talking about billions here, not millions...You’ll be pleased to here then that Haliburton have announced they won’t be bidding for reconstruction
contracts.Here’s an ethical dilemma for you: what if lifting sanctions will benefit some 7-year-old Iraqi kid and Jay Garner?
Will it? Seriously biffa, give one example that requires all sanctions to be lifted.But I don’t see how any of that disproves the notion that war was the only way of liberating Iraqis from Saddam.
The fact that despite UN and US intervention, Milosovich wasn't knocked from power, but was removed years later by his own people shows that there are alternatives to a full-scale invasion to depose a leader. That proves that war was not the only way.0 -
-
-
-
-
Me. What I consider morally wrong I consider morally wrong. It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks.Éomer of Rohan
And who is to say what is morally right and wrong? You? Me?
Irony detector still OFF Éomer?…and to class one idea as right is wrong as it ends all debate and closes minds.
OK.That is what I call trolling as you wrote it to get up people's noses - it is not even a generalisation since the vast majority of anti-war groups were trying to support the rights of the Iraqi people - even Amnesty International which by its very nature cannot take a political line.
The point is that the US is much better placed to make the new Iraq free and prosperous than they are in Afghanistan. Maybe they’ll make a pigs ear of it, but at least the Iraqis now have a chance. Which is better than no chance at all.What does it matter how different the situations are? The point is that in Afghanistan, the US pledged considerable amounts of money and never delivered - thus the country is still in a shambles (partly due to the US flattening thereof) and the Taliban are regaining control. The US broke their word for the millionth time, the US belied the claim that they are defenders of Freedom and Democracy when they will abandon both at any opportunity that suits.
There have been some anti-US demonstrations but they have been very small. Most Iraqis seem to welcome the Americans, but the liberal meeja don’t want you to know this. Read this for what’s really happening in Iraq.There have been plenty of demonstrations to get the US out and you know it.
Eh?*cough* Angola *Cough*
You would be acting in a morally consistent manner but you would still be morally wrong. In my opinion of course.Originally posted by bonkey
So you agree then that if Eomer, I, or anyone else feels that the US is morally wrong in its actions, then we are right to oppose them?
The allegation of anti-Americanism refers to the belief that many of those who oppose the war on Iraq are doing so in reaction to the fact that it is America, or more specifically Bush, who is carrying out the attack, rather than out of any sincerely-held belief that the war is morally wrong. I am convinced that anti-Bush sentiment explains most of the opposition to the war, and to a lesser extent anti-Americanism.So apparently agreeing with the US isnt pro-American, its just taking a moral stance, where as disagreeing with them couldnt possibly be the same. No - it has to be referred to time and time again as anti-American.
Am I actually having this debate? I cannot believe that people are seriously arguing against lifting sanctions. Lookit, I haven’t a frickin’ clue exactly what’s needed to rebuild Iraq, but we have been told for years that sanctions are destroying Iraq and I would be very surprised if it now turned out sanctions weren’t actually doing any harm. Go read any number of the anti-sanctions websites out there.And what dual-use items, praytell, are urgently needed?
…
Exactly what will it achieve that cannot be achieved with the sanctions in place?
Well maybe you’d like to tell me exactly what sort of controls you need to get trade going again, how much time it takes, how much effort, how much money, who should be responsible. And no general hand-waving please...specifics are needed here. Because I think the onus is on you to explain why they should remain, given that the original reason they were put in place is no longer valid.What is worth diverting time and effort into restablishing a system of controls and so on to get international trade (free or otherwise) functioning again at this point in time?
What is so important about doing this now that this effort could not be better spent addressing other issues such as getting the nation under control (kinda useful for trade to be practical), making sure the humanitarian aid can get where its needed, and so on and so forth.
Well if the UN does not lift sanctions the US should certainly just disregard them and start trading freely with Iraq again, as should Ireland. Other countries that want to keep sanctions in place are free to do so independently. To be honest, UN approval doesn’t really matter a damn.Well...yeah...I guess if you want to take the stance that the US can simply not bother ending the sanctions and simply decide to ignore them...selling the oil to anyone else who will ignore them, then sure...the UN doesnt need to lift the sanctions or end the OfF program at all. It can just be ignored by the US again.
Of course, this would then beg the question of why you are suggesting it be done at all?0 -
It's a beautiful sunny bank holiday afternoon... I must be mad to be replying to biffa
So this is all a wind-up then?Me. What I consider morally wrong I consider morally wrong. It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks.
On the contrary. The US was much better placed to make Afghanistan free and prosperous. Why?The point is that the US is much better placed to make the new Iraq free and prosperous than they are in Afghanistan.
1) The Taliban was universally feared and hated with the exception of the thugs it empowered - remember, the Taliban was being actively resisted with military forces within afghanistan.
2) There were political groups based on human rights already organised in Afghanistan, albiet secretly - and the moment the Taliban was knocked out of power, these groups came out into the open. Women's rights movements, for example.
3) Afghanistan is a much smaller country than Iraq, in both area and population, therefore it's a smaller job to rebuild it.
4) Afghanistan does not have a majority who want a return to Islamic law (60% of iraqis polled have said they do).
5) Afghanistan is less politically dubious - the Taliban's crimes there have been acknowleged by most of the Western world as heinous and the US would have had far less difficulty in getting international aid for Afghanistan.
There are other reasons, but basicly, Afghanistan was a small job, well supported by the world's nation. Iraq is a big thorny job, the taking on of which will be subject to rather intense worldwide scrutiny and criticism.
(Besides which, Bush may not be around in two years, so he would have had more time to work on Afghanistan. And if you want to win hearts and minds, I can't think of a better way to do it than rebuilding a nation destroyed by well over twenty years of warfare.)
Given the US record, the Iraqis have two chances of a democratic and fair government. Slim and none.Maybe they’ll make a pigs ear of it, but at least the Iraqis now have a chance. Which is better than no chance at all.
Small anti-US demonstrations? Large pro-US demonstrations? Ah. Right, you're trusting embedded reporters, aren't youThere have been some anti-US demonstrations but they have been very small. Most Iraqis seem to welcome the Americans, but the liberal meeja don’t want you to know this. Read this for what’s really happening in Iraq.
Biffa, go read some more please.
BTW, if you really want to trust embedded reporting, try to examine the crowning acheivement of embedded reporting - the pulling down of a statue of saddam in Baghdad.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Or maybe Jessica Lynch's rescue?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1051643375850
Good, because you're certainly not seriously argueing for lifting them - you're just saying "Lift them" and acting all hurt when some of us ask why.Am I actually having this debate? I cannot believe that people are seriously arguing against lifting sanctions.
Than how do you know lifting sanctions will do any good?Lookit, I haven’t a frickin’ clue exactly what’s needed to rebuild Iraq,
Incorrectly. In northern Iraq, where saddam couldn't corrupt the OfF program, sanctions didn't hurt Iraq. In southern Iraq, the corruption in the OfF program, courtesy of Ba'ath party officals, caused harm by denying aid to those that needed it. Since they are now gone, according to the US, what's the problem that lifting sanctions would solve?but we have been told for years that sanctions are destroying Iraq
Biffa, I suspect you'd be surprised to learn that Iraq was east of Israel...and I would be very surprised if it now turned out sanctions weren’t actually doing any harm.
:rolleyes:
Why would an anti-sanction website be more trustworthy than an anti-american website?Go read any number of the anti-sanctions websites out there.
And that is a personal insult to me. :mad: You're saying my lack of affection for Dubya (who has earned it) is greater than my desire to not see innocents be killed.The allegation of anti-Americanism refers to the belief that many of those who oppose the war on Iraq are doing so in reaction to the fact that it is America, or more specifically Bush, who is carrying out the attack, rather than out of any sincerely-held belief that the war is morally wrong.
Why bother? We could make up anything we wanted and since you " haven’t a frickin’ clue exactly what’s needed to rebuild Iraq", you wouldn't know what was accurate and what wasn't.Well maybe you’d like to tell me exactly what sort of controls you need to get trade going again, how much time it takes, how much effort, how much money, who should be responsible. And no general hand-waving please...specifics are needed here.
Actually, the onus is on the US administration to demonstrate why they should be allowed to control the economy of a foreign nation. And I'd be very worried if sanctions were lifted - it would be tantamount to rewarding the US for invading a soverign nation over the objections of the rest of the world.Because I think the onus is on you to explain why they should remain, given that the original reason they were put in place is no longer valid.
I would remain unsurprised if the US ignored sanctions, and less surprised if Ahern&co. decided to cash in. That wouldn't make it right, ethically, morally, or legally and since this is the purview of the WTO, the US most certainly won't step out of line - not when it's debt ceiling needs to go up by $1 trillion to prevent it defaulting on it's national debt before the end of May...Well if the UN does not lift sanctions the US should certainly just disregard them and start trading freely with Iraq again, as should Ireland.
Just like your uninformed and unconsidered opinion.Other countries that want to keep sanctions in place are free to do so independently. To be honest, UN approval doesn’t really matter a damn.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Iraq was a much richer country than Iraq. It isn't at present.You forgot the fact that Iraq is a much richer and more educated country than Afghanistan. Iraq has a large middle class, unlike Afghanistan. Iraq has several hundred thousand well-educated emigrants in the EU and US, again unlike Afghanistan.
It is more educated, that's true. It no longer has a large middle class. And those emigrants are unlikely to wish to leave the EU or US to return to Iraq at present.
This pretty much ignores the fact that the one resource the Iraqis currently have to sell is firmly in the hands of US troops.Lifting sanctions means that Iraqis will have more control (and the US will have less control) over their own economy. They'll be able to sell to who they want, without US warships patrolling the Gulf to stop them.
If by "people like you" you mean members of the human race, well, that's true. If you mean me specifically, you're flat-out wrong. I haven't been calling for sanctions to be lifted for years.For years, people like you were accusing the US of mass murder due to the suffering caused by the Iraq sanctions. Now that the US wants the sanctions lifted, you change your mind and want them to stay? To me, this looks like a case of "anything the US does is wrong".
In summary, sanctions were put in place in an attempt to limit Hussein. They were reasonably effective, but were having too great an adverse effect on the Iraqi population so the Oil-for-food program was created. However, the UN made the mistake of leaving the Iraqi government handle the last stage in food distribution, which led to large-scale corruption in southern Iraq and significant problems for Iraqi people. This corruption was the sole responsibility of the Ba'ath party. Logically, at that time, lifting sanctions would have been a reasonable idea - but a better one would have been restructuring the distribution mechanism.
RIGHT NOW, however, the Ba'ath party is smashed. The situation is therefore closer to that of Northern Iraq, where the OfF program was not so heavily corrupted - and where general healthcare was not badly affected.
Therefore, lifting sanctions would not be of any great help to the immediate and necessary problem of humanitarian aid. I quote from the UN resolution that imposed the sanctions, 661 :
In other words, humanitarian aid can be shipped in by the truckload without sanctions being lifted;3. Decides that all States shall prevent:
(c) The sale or supply by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels of any commodities or products, including weapons or any other military equipment, whether or not originating in their territories but not including supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs, to any person or body in Iraq or Kuwait or to any person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Iraq or Kuwait, and any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote such sale or supply of such commodities or products;
In other words, funding humanitarian aid isn't affeced by sanctions.4. Decides that all States shall not make available to the Government of Iraq or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Iraq or Kuwait, any funds or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to that Government or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Iraq or Kuwait, except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs;
So why does the humanitarian program now needed in Iraq need sanctions to be lifted?
The photo is not a fake, unlike some we've seen in mainstream news over the last few days. And the report on Jessica Lynch is from a mainstream source. And while I trust the BBC more than most, I wouldn't waste my time watching Fox or CNN anymore. Investigative reporting and critical analysis seem to have died a death in the US media right nowYeah, don't trust CNN or the BBC, trust this crackpot website that you've never heard of before! I wouldn't place any more trust in informationclearinghouse than I would in Fox News. 0 -
I presume you mean Afghanistan instead of the second Iraq there.Iraq was a much richer country than Iraq. It isn't at present.
Per-capita GDP of Afghanistan: $800 (2000 est, source)
Per-capita GDP of Iraq: $2500 (2001, source)
So even making the completely unrealistic assumptions that the Iraqi war halved the GDP of Iraq, and that the Afghanistan war didn't affect Afghan GDP at all, Iraq is still significantly richer than Afghanistan.
Burden of proof. If you want sanctions to remain in place when the original reason they were imposed has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.Originally posted by Sparks
So why does the humanitarian program now needed in Iraq need sanctions to be lifted?
There's nothing in that article or about that photograph that says what time it was taken at. It's not even possible to see if the status is still upright. Most likely it was shot a few hours after the toppling, unless you want to invent some vast shadowy conspiracy involving hundreds of journalists from different countries all of whom are lying to us...The photo is not a fake, unlike some we've seen in mainstream news over the last few days.
Especially on TV, yes. But the fact the the mainstream US media lacks credibility doesn't mean that we should automatically believe anyone who disgrees with them.Investigative reporting and critical analysis seem to have died a death in the US media right now0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Will you please stop saying this on almost every reply you make to this thread?I am honestly amazed that all the people who complained about the sanctions while Saddam was in power are now calling for them to be kept in place. A classic example of doublethink.
Also, please see my earlier post for some clarification of what you call double think.
Yes yes, we know that civilians in Iraq are richer per head than civilians in Afghanistan - enough already!Do you even know what the term "GDP purchasing power parity" means?4) There is no offically recognised Iraqi government. Until there is one, the UN cannot morally make any decisions regarding the foreign trade of a nation.
Please quote the part of the UN charter where it says this.
There is no area in the charter of the UN which even attempts to cover this situation but surely you can all see that the UN making any such far reaching decision would acknowledge the invasion, if you like, giving a tacit nod to the illegal use of force (and whether you agree with it in this instance or not, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, it would be wrong of the UN to make any such gesture until the Iraqi democracy is up and running and fully autonomous.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Personally, I don’t believe anyone, but it does make for some very imaginative entertainment at times...Originally posted by Sparks
Or maybe Jessica Lynch's rescue?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1051643375850
Sources Say Jessica Lynch Has Amnesia 0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement