Should UN sanctions now be lifted against Iraq?

SkepticOne

Now that Saddam has been ousted, is there still a case for maintaining sanctions against Iraq? Is maintaining them simply prolonging the suffering of the Iraqi people who have suffered enough?

It seems that Russia is at odds with Britain/US over the issue. What do you think? What should our Government's stance be?

Executive Steve

sanctions should be lifted and the yanks should **** off

Sparks

Forgive the obvious question, but if we can't get water, food or power to the iraqi's, why are we concerned with their foreign trade situation right now? How about we settle the humanitarian problem of famine, cholera and the other things the WHO is worried about and then worry about the sanctions?

On that article,

And he vowed the future of Iraq would NOT be entrusted to a squabbling United Nations which opposed the war in the first place.

Granted, it is from the Sun, but the thing is - the UN wasn't squabbling - it was rather united in its opposition to the US/K invading Iraq.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Forgive the obvious question, but if we can't get water, food or power to the iraqi's, why are we concerned with their foreign trade situation right now? How about we settle the humanitarian problem of famine, cholera and the other things the WHO is worried about and then worry about the sanctions?

Are those your actual opinions or are you just trolling?

Sparks

If you mean "do you think we should keep sanctions in place", the answer is no, I don't see a need for them right now.

If you mean "are you seriously suggesting that meeting basic survival needs is a more important matter for debate than the sanctions stopping Iraqi oil being sold by/for/to the US" then the answer is a very loud yes.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
If you mean "do you think we should keep sanctions in place", the answer is no, I don't see a need for them right now.

If you mean "are you seriously suggesting that meeting basic survival needs is a more important matter for debate than the sanctions stopping Iraqi oil being sold by/for/to the US" then the answer is a very loud yes.

How is calling for the end of sanctions in any way preventing humanitarian work in Iraq?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by [cm]tyranny
sanctions should be lifted and the yanks should **** off

Even if the departure of the Americans meant Iraq degenerating into civil war?

Zachary Taylor

The sanctions should be lifted. They were imposed against a regime, not a geographical area or the Iraqi people, and have been more effective in harming these people than damaging the regime.

Sparks

How is calling for the end of sanctions in any way preventing humanitarian work in Iraq?

It's not. Which is why I didn't say it was. Could we debate what I actually said please? It's so much easier that way.

Even if the departure of the Americans meant Iraq degenerating into civil war?

Blue berets.

The sanctions should be lifted. They were imposed against a regime, not a geographical area or the Iraqi people, and have been more effective in harming these people than damaging the regime.

More accuarately, they've been manipulated and abused in a manner that harmed the Iraqi people in southern Iraq where Saddam had control. Saddam no longer has control there. Since the sanctions weren't causing critical humanitarian problems in Northern Iraq where they were applied faiirly, I don't see why this is a critical problem now. Remember, if sanctions were lifted by midnight tonight, it would take a while to get the money and goods flowing for humanitarian relief - it would be a better use of time and personnell to organise the distribution of already-purchased supplies and aid around Iraq and to work on restoring basic and critical services.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
It's not. Which is why I didn't say it was. Could we debate what I actually said please? It's so much easier that way.

So what's your problem with calling for sanctions to be lifted?

Blue berets.

Who will do f*ck all. Not that the anti-war people give a monkey's about the welfare of Iraqis.

Sparks

So what's your problem with calling for sanctions to be lifted?

Well, I guess "it would be a better use of time and personnell to organise the distribution of already-purchased supplies and aid around Iraq and to work on restoring basic and critical services" isn't clear enough. How about this: the people calling for the sanctions to be lifted are the US. Not the Iraqis. Why?
Frankly, I find this whole call for lifting sanctions to be a sneaky and underhanded way to open up the oil market for US-controlled Iraqi oil, and nothing to do with humanitarian assistance. It's like Bush's $15billion promise for AIDS aid in africa that he made in the state of the union speech. Sounded great - didn't hold up to scrutiny. Half of it was arranged for by other administrations, and a quarter of it won't come out of Bush's administration. And none of it will get to Africa in time to do any real good. And that's the WHO's opinion, not mine.

Who will do f*ck all.

Don't piss on the blue beret's please.

Not that the anti-war people give a monkey's about the welfare of Iraqis.

Really? Wow. That was elequant. Care to elaborate?

Éomer of Rohan

Sanctions should be lifted so long as the profits from new trade and so on are given directly to the new government of Iraq to spend on undoing the damage done by the US and NOT the interim government. It should not be the decision of a bunch of US bureaucrats how this money is spent.

Victor

Originally posted by Zachary Taylor
The sanctions should be lifted. They were imposed against a regime, not a geographical area or the Iraqi people, and have been more effective in harming these people than damaging the regime.

Is this so the US &UK can sell weapons to Iraq again?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, I guess "it would be a better use of time and personnell to organise the distribution of already-purchased supplies and aid around Iraq and to work on restoring basic and critical services" isn't clear enough.

But you've already accepted that calling for sanctions to be lifted in no way impedes any of this. What are you on about?

How about this: the people calling for the sanctions to be lifted are the US. Not the Iraqis. Why?

How are Iraqis supposed to call for sanctions to be lifted? They have little or no access to media, no public representatives.

Frankly, I find this whole call for lifting sanctions to be a sneaky and underhanded way to open up the oil market for US-controlled Iraqi oil, and nothing to do with humanitarian assistance.

That's because of your virulent anti-US bias. How the hell can anyone be against lifting sanctions?

Really? Wow. That was elequant. Care to elaborate?

Anti-war = anti-human rights for Iraqis. There was no other way for them to win their freedom.

Éomer of Rohan

That's because of your virulent anti-US bias. How the hell can anyone be against lifting sanctions?

Alternatively your blindness is because of your pro-US bias; works both ways.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Even if the departure of the Americans meant Iraq degenerating into civil war?

Surely Biffa you must realize that civil war is the ultimate expression of national liberty, and you support their liberty, don’t you? :rolleyes:

[edit]Emoticon added, in case certain ppl thought I was serious... well, completely anyway[/edit]

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Not that the anti-war people give a monkey's about the welfare of Iraqis.

Biffa - I think you're the one trolling now.

Are you telling me that I dont care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, despite my making clear in numerous threads to date that I was opposed to the war on balance when I took all the factors into account?

I'd find that both presumptious and insulting of you, personally.

Or when you say "anti-war people", do you actually mean something other than "the people who were anti-war", because that sure as hell includes me.

So which is it - you're deliberately insulting me, or just using sweeping generalisations which you dont actually mean, and are only insulting me by accident because you were referring more specifically to others?

That's because of your virulent anti-US bias

Now what makes you think that you are exempt from the rules here Biffa?

Attack the post, not the poster.

If all you can or wish to do is hurl insults at groups who have a differing political belief than you, or individual posters who wish to discuss the point with you, then one of us (you or I - I dont mind) will make sure you do it somewhere else.

jc

Sparks

bonkey,

Biffa - I think you're the one trolling now.

NOW??? Where have you been?

Biffa,

But you've already accepted that calling for sanctions to be lifted in no way impedes any of this. What are you on about?

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...
Speaking of, have you been reading about Afghanistan lately?

How are Iraqis supposed to call for sanctions to be lifted? They have little or no access to media, no public representatives.

Yes, because there are no reporters, no public leaders, no protests, no mass meetings, nothing like that in Iraq :rolleyes:

That's because of your virulent anti-US bias.

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:
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.

How the hell can anyone be against lifting sanctions?

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.

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?

Anti-war = anti-human rights for Iraqis. There was no other way for them to win their freedom.

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.

Care to ask why I was against this war? Precedence.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Surely Biffa you must realize that civil war is the ultimate expression of national liberty, and you support their liberty, don’t you?

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.

Originally posted by bonkey
So which is it - you're deliberately insulting me, or just using sweeping generalisations which you dont actually mean, and are only insulting me by accident because you were referring more specifically to others?

Er…option no. 2 (the sweeping generalisations one).

Originally posted by Sparks
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.

All it takes to lift sanctions is a vote in the Security Council. Why would this require the time of humanitarian groups?

Besides, it eats newstime and since politicians in general fund that which gets media time...

I don’t see how getting sanctions lifted would require any funding at all.

Speaking of, have you been reading about Afghanistan lately?

Yes. What’s your point?

Yes, because there are no reporters, no public leaders, no protests, no mass meetings, nothing like that in Iraq :rolleyes:

Well I would imagine that access to these is extremely limited for most Iraqis. 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? Why on earth would Iraqis want sanctions to remain in place?

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:
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.

Does that also mean you’re anti the majority of Americans who support Bush?
Anyway, 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).

It depends on what good lifting them will do, and who will benefit.

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?

I have no interest in lifting sanctions to pay Haliburton.

You’ll be pleased to here then that Haliburton have announced they won’t be bidding for reconstruction contracts.

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.

Here’s an ethical dilemma for you: what if lifting sanctions will benefit some 7-year-old Iraqi kid and Jay Garner?

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.

I think you mean Kosovo. As it happens, I was actually against that war at the time because I thought it was unfair to force Serbia to accept the proposed peace settlement.
But I don’t see how any of that disproves the notion that war was the only way of liberating Iraqis from Saddam.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You’ll be pleased to here then that Haliburton have announced they won’t be bidding for reconstruction contracts.

Why bid when you can bribe?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
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.

That's not really what I was saying. Nonetheless, I wonder if you would support the liberty of pro-Iranian groups to achieve power, even if they use peaceful means?

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do I support the liberty of certain factions within Iraq to use violence in order to seize power for themselves?

Let me get this straight...

You say that the Iraqi's would be wrong to decide that the US was just another dictator imposing its will on them and that they should attempt an uprising to achieve self-determiniation.

Does it not follow also that the Iraqi's would have been wrong by your standards to attempt to depose Hussein? If so, then what the hell was the US doing it for them?

Or is it just that it would be wrong to oppose leaders that you support, but ok to oppose the ones you dont?

Er…option no. 2 (the sweeping generalisations one).

So....you're admitting to using sweeping generalisations that you didnt actually mean.

Now would you care to explain why.....because that sounds exactly like trolling to me.

Does that also mean you’re anti the majority of Americans who support Bush?

I dunno...were you anti the majority of Americans who were against Bush before he went to war?

The demographics shifted once the war started - a phenomenon usually attributed to people's want to support their troops rather than oppose the people who put them there.

Seeing an oil conspiracy even behind the lifting of sanctions is just ridiculous

Biffa - can you offer a single reason why lifting the sanctions would be advantageous? Just one? I'm not interested in the "what if it was good for a 7-year old kid". I want to know how it is good.

What is the driving need to have the sanctions lifted, and how will it benefit people?

When that case can be made, then there is a reason to consider it. Until then, there isnt. The recommencement of unsanctioned trade would require that controls be put in place...imports and exports would no longer be controlled by the UN, and would rather revert to being the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

Oh...hang on....there isnt one.

Has the UN even recognised the US' interim government as the rightful rulers of Iraq at present? If not, then there isnt any possibility of lifting the sanctions and giving an unrecognised government control over a nation's foreign trade.

If the UN did decide to recognise the interim government and lift the sanctions, then the first thing said interim government would have to do is put a lot of effort into getting a workable and controllable system in place for managing the imports and exports.

It should also be noted that a lifting of the sanctions would also mean a defacto end to the Oil For Food program - which is funded by proceeds garnered from the sanctions. Now, if that goes, who steps in to fill the gap? Where is all the humanitarian funding going to be replaced from?

And yet, here you are, insisting that all this would take is "a vote in the Security Council" and all would be well.

I wish I shared your belief in the simplicity of the workings of the world.

jc

Sparks

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.

Careful now. Which "certain factions" ???

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.

bonkey's answered this quite elequently, making all the points I would have (and one or two I hadn't considered).

Speaking of, have you been reading about Afghanistan lately?
Yes. What’s your point?

*sigh*
*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 though

Anyway, 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?

You’ll be pleased to here then that Haliburton have announced they won’t be bidding for reconstruction
contracts.

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...

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.

Éomer of Rohan

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.

months later at the very most and I think, in fairness, it was due to the US threats to resume bombing the country (and that means civilians too). However, also in fairness, for every Kosovo, which I didn't really agree with to be honest but which served its purpose, there are ten Vietnams.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Nonetheless, I wonder if you would support the liberty of pro-Iranian groups to achieve power, even if they use peaceful means?

Provided it was legal under whatever new constitution the Iraqis get, yes.

Originally posted by bonkey
You say that the Iraqi's would be wrong to decide that the US was just another dictator imposing its will on them and that they should attempt an uprising to achieve self-determiniation.

Does it not follow also that the Iraqi's would have been wrong by your standards to attempt to depose Hussein? If so, then what the hell was the US doing it for them?

Or is it just that it would be wrong to oppose leaders that you support, but ok to oppose the ones you dont?

Basically, it would be wrong to oppose morally right leaders, and right to oppose morally wrong leaders. The level of support or opposition Iraqis should give to their leaders should be dependant on the relative moral rightness / wrongness of those leaders compared to any alternative leader. So, it’s OK to have opposed Saddam, even having used violence to try to get rid of him, because he was extremely evil and the alternative could hardly be worse. It would be wrong to violently oppose American occupation, or at best misguided, as they have already committed themselves to leaving the country after a democratic constitution is in place. Getting rid of them now is hardly going to leave Iraq better off.

So....you're admitting to using sweeping generalisations that you didnt actually mean.

Now would you care to explain why.....because that sounds exactly like trolling to me.

bonkey, if you considered anyone who ever used a sweeping generalisation here to be trolling, I think you would end up banning the vast majority of posters.

I dunno...were you anti the majority of Americans who were against Bush before he went to war?

I would have been anti their political beliefs, but I would like to think I would not oppose something that was morally right just because they were doing it, which is the point about anti-Americanism being a major factor in the opposition to the war. (Yes of course, not true of everyone, many did weigh up the pros and cons and on balance were opposed etc.)

Biffa - can you offer a single reason why lifting the sanctions would be advantageous? Just one? I'm not interested in the "what if it was good for a 7-year old kid". I want to know how it is good.

1. It will make reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure easier as potential dual-use items would no longer be prohibited.
2. Free trade will allow Iraq’s economy to recover faster.

Has the UN even recognised the US' interim government as the rightful rulers of Iraq at present? If not, then there isnt any possibility of lifting the sanctions and giving an unrecognised government control over a nation's foreign trade.

I don’t think even the Americans would consider themselves the rightful rulers of Iraq. But as an occupying power they have a responsibility to ensure that the country is run properly. The UN does not have to recognise them as rightful rulers in order to assist them in this.

It should also be noted that a lifting of the sanctions would also mean a defacto end to the Oil For Food program - which is funded by proceeds garnered from the sanctions. Now, if that goes, who steps in to fill the gap? Where is all the humanitarian funding going to be replaced from?

The interim administration will fill the gap using revenue from oil exports. Exactly how the Oil for Food program was funded. What is the problem here?

Originally posted by Sparks
Careful now. Which "certain factions" ???

Islamic fundamentalists. Kurdish separatists. Ba’athists. Tribal leaders. Any number of chancers.

*sigh*
*bangs keyboard on wall*

I’m sorry. It’s just that you jumped from sanctions against Iraq to the situation in Afghanistan. It seemed a bit of a non sequitur.

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.

Afghanistan is different from Iraq as the Americans were never actually running Afghanistan like they are in Iraq.

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.

“The rest”?? LOL.
Anyway, let’s turn this around. Where are all the Iraqis calling for sanctions not to be lifted? Since it seems at the moment that they are going to be lifted.

No, actually I was expecting mass rallies to get the US out of Iraq...
Hmm. Odd that.

Odd that it’s not happening?

To preserve their resources until they get back on their feet again?

Why would they want to do that? Do you not think they might want to utilise their resources in order to get back on their feet?

No, there isn't an oil conspiracy behind raising sanctions.

So why did you write: “Frankly, I find this whole call for lifting sanctions to be a sneaky and underhanded way to open up the oil market for US-controlled Iraqi oil, and nothing to do with humanitarian assistance.”?

Will it? Seriously biffa, give one example that requires all sanctions to be lifted.

See my response to bonkey above.

The fact that despite UN and US intervention, Milosovich wasn't knocked from power…

Surely you mean “thanks to” US intervention? The disastrous Kosovo war seriously weakened Milosevic’s standing in Yugoslavia, contributing to his electoral defeat. Not forgetting CIA funds channeled to opposition groups.

…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.

As bad as Milosevic was, he was nowhere near as brutal as Saddam. Are you aware of what happened the last time there was a rebellion against him? Also, would you really prefer if Saddam was overthrown in a rebellion rather than through invasion? Think of the risk of civil war breaking out.

Éomer of Rohan

Basically, it would be wrong to oppose morally right leaders, and right to oppose morally wrong leaders.

And who is to say what is morally right and wrong? You? Me? There are hugely different - in fact diametrically opposite ideas of what is right and wrong - not everything falling into morality since some of us are areligious - and to class one idea as right is wrong as it ends all debate and closes minds.

Not that the anti-war people give a monkey's about the welfare of Iraqis.

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. Even a dead horse has the political common sense to see that.

I would have been anti their political beliefs, but I would like to think I would not oppose something that was morally right just because they were doing it, which is the point about anti-Americanism being a major factor in the opposition to the war.

Simply this means that even many Americans accept that their country was wrong on this issue. Anti-Americanism is a very valid political viewpoint given the number of times I and others have outlined America's almost wholly flawed interventionist history of the US not to mention what Vorbis wanted to disregard - the underlying motives inherent in that history.

Afghanistan is different from Iraq as the Americans were never actually running Afghanistan like they are in Iraq.

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.

Odd that it’s not happening?

There have been plenty of demonstrations to get the US out and you know it.

Not forgetting CIA funds channeled to opposition groups.

*cough* Angola *Cough*

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Basically, it would be wrong to oppose morally right leaders, and right to oppose morally wrong leaders.

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?

bonkey, if you considered anyone who ever used a sweeping generalisation here to be trolling, I think you would end up banning the vast majority of posters.

Most sweeping generalisations are not broad insults.

Let me put it this way Biffa - if you had used anything but a sweeping generalisation, you would have been banned for attacking the poster rather than the post.

Instead, you use a sweeping generalisation that you admit you knew was inaccurate. Now, if it wasnt to avoid being banned for being more specific in terms of who you said it about, then I would dearly love to know the purpose of your comment, because quite frankly, the more of this type of stuff I'm seeing from you the less inclined I am to believe that it is not a deliberate attempt to wind others up.

If thats not what it is, then fair enough....consider this a warning to be more conscious about what you type in future, because you wont always be given the benefit of the doubt.

I would have been anti their political beliefs, but I would like to think I would not oppose something that was morally right just because they were doing it, which is the point about anti-Americanism being a major factor in the opposition to the war.

Morals are subective. You perceive it as morally right...fine. That still has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of others applying criticism if they are basing it on the same criteria.

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.

For someone discussing morals and how they impact a stance...would you say that applying such different standards of criticism to the various stances for no justifiable reason other than to suit your own argument is moral, amoral, or immoral?

Not one person that I can recall of who has offered criticism to the US on these forums has been unable to offer their reasons for offering such criticism, and yet time and time again, they are not billed as opposing what they see as morally wrong....no...they are just anti-American.

1. It will make reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure easier as potential dual-use items would no longer be prohibited.

And what dual-use items, praytell, are urgently needed?

2. Free trade will allow Iraq’s economy to recover faster.

Supposition. Exactly what will it achieve that cannot be achieved with the sanctions in place? No general hand-waving please...specifics are needed here. 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.

The UN does not have to recognise them as rightful rulers in order to assist them in this.

Yes it does.

The UN should not and will not hand control of a nations finances over to anyone other than the recognised government of that nation. To do anything less would not only be grossly immoral, it would be tantamount to theft. Thus, the UN most certainly does have to recognise the US authority before it could end the Sanction, Oil for Food program and release the funds for use.

Until that point, the UN sanctions must remain in place. Which leads us nicely to .....

The interim administration will fill the gap using revenue from oil exports. Exactly how the Oil for Food program was funded. What is the problem here?

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?

Biffa Bacon

Éomer of Rohan
And who is to say what is morally right and wrong? You? Me?

Me. What I consider morally wrong I consider morally wrong. It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks.

…and to class one idea as right is wrong as it ends all debate and closes minds.

Irony detector still OFF Éomer?

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.

OK.

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.

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.

There have been plenty of demonstrations to get the US out and you know it.

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.

*cough* Angola *Cough*

Eh?

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?

You would be acting in a morally consistent manner but you would still be morally wrong. In my opinion of course.

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.

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.

And what dual-use items, praytell, are urgently needed?
…
Exactly what will it achieve that cannot be achieved with the sanctions in place?

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

Sparks

It's a beautiful sunny bank holiday afternoon... I must be mad to be replying to biffa

Me. What I consider morally wrong I consider morally wrong. It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks.

So this is all a wind-up then?

The point is that the US is much better placed to make the new Iraq free and prosperous than they are in Afghanistan.

On the contrary. The US was much better placed to make Afghanistan free and prosperous. Why?
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.)

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.

Given the US record, the Iraqis have two chances of a democratic and fair government. Slim and none.

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.

Small anti-US demonstrations? Large pro-US demonstrations? Ah. Right, you're trusting embedded reporters, aren't you
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

Am I actually having this debate? I cannot believe that people are seriously arguing against lifting sanctions.

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.

Lookit, I haven’t a frickin’ clue exactly what’s needed to rebuild Iraq,

Than how do you know lifting sanctions will do any good?

but we have been told for years that sanctions are destroying 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?

and I would be very surprised if it now turned out sanctions weren’t actually doing any harm.

Biffa, I suspect you'd be surprised to learn that Iraq was east of Israel...
:rolleyes:

Go read any number of the anti-sanctions websites out there.

Why would an anti-sanction website be more trustworthy than an anti-american website?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Just like your uninformed and unconsidered opinion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks.

Such nuggets of tolerance and wisdom are typically what give rise to dictators, holy wars, oppression, intolerance and all the rest.

Most of the rest of us base our stance on our beliefs, and recognise that others will not share these beliefs and that - as a result - compromise is the only sensible solution.

Nice to see that you understand those you are opposed to so well - they too typically believe that they are right and that no-one else's opinion matters.

jc

Meh

On the contrary. The US was much better placed to make Afghanistan free and prosperous.

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.

Actually, the onus is on the US administration to demonstrate why they should be allowed to control the economy of a foreign nation.

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.

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.

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".

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...article2842.htm

Yeah, 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.