News What are the implications of lifting the sanctions on Iraq?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

What do you think of the UN's action in removing the sanctions from Iraq?

For me it's a little like, what an intelligent move, giving money to people, to help people, who would'a thunk it?

Can you imagine, you can help people! by giving them money!

For all of the times I have seen the UN critisized, here, in these forums, do you ever go the other way? and compliment, or agree with some of there moves, as lifting the Sanctions was/is a good move.

(Yes, a bit of a "no brainer" sorta, but still a good move)

Comments??

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

CHEESE, no a single person willing to admit that the UN did something Good, (insert question mark someone played wiht this computer altering it s keyboard, YIKES!)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
CHEESE, no a single person willing to admit that the UN did something Good...

Sorry, I haven't been here much lately. The UN did something good - because the US told them to (after creating the situation where its a reasonable thing to do).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, I haven't been here much lately. The UN did something good - because the US told them to (after creating the situation where its a reasonable thing to do).

Funny, as I seem to remember that they asked if it could be done, respectfully, and it was voted upon, and found a consensus that is extrordinarily rare, unanimous. (yes, Syria came in late, the simplicity that it is difficult to represent a country, in such a situation, because, you need to inform so many people, get there responces, and then represent them all.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Funny, as I seem to remember that they asked if it could be done, respectfully, and it was voted upon, and found a consensus that is extrordinarily rare, unanimous.

Right.

'Could you please do exactly what we tell you to?

Thanks.'

The UN was initially NOT in favor of lifting the sanctions after the war. They wanted to continue with sanctions and inspections. We said no.

 

[FZ+]

Actually, many of them were in favour of lifting sanctions... five years ago.
But because Iraq had WMDs, we didn't. Ok course, now that it turns out that the WMDs don't actually exist, the sanctions can be lifted.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok course, now that it turns out that the WMDs don't actually exist, the sanctions can be lifted.

This is a nitpick, but the weapons DID exist 10 years ago. There was no dispute about that in the UN. And they very likely still did 5 years ago - why else would Saddam force the inspectors to leave? The question that the inspectors went in last year to answer was: do they exist NOW? and if not, what happened to them? (Did Saddam destroy them as ordered?)

What I don't understand is the logic here: If Saddam had no WMD 6 months ago, why the need to decieve? Why not lead the inspectors directly to where they were stored (and now aren't) and where they were destroyed. His 12,000 pages of paperwork was crap, but if he wanted to prove he destroyed his WMD he could have. Clearly his lack of cooperation didn't help him any.

What was his motive for the deception if not to hide WMD?

In any case, FZ+, my point was the US has been leading the UN by the nose on Iraq since 1990 (though Clinton did allow Saddam to lead him, he wouldn't let the UN lead him). Yes, many members of the UN wanted the sanctions ended 5 years ago. And we said no.

 

[Zero]

Let's nitpick some more, shall we?

And they very likely still did 5 years ago - why else would Saddam force the inspectors to leave?

The inspectors were pulled out by the US, not by Iraq...and the chief inspector has publicly stated that they found probably 90-95% of all the weapons.

If Saddam had no WMD 6 months ago, why the need to decieve? Why not lead the inspectors directly to where they were stored (and now aren't) and where they were destroyed.

Well, let's account for our trillion in missing military budget spending, before we complain about the accounting of a 3rd world nation that has been bombed weekely for a decade, ok?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Let's nitpick some more, shall we?

The inspectors were pulled out by the US, not by Iraq...

Well even more nitpicking: I didn't say they were kicked out, I said they were forced out. The US removed them because Iraq's level of interference increased and made the inspections go from weak to pointless.

and the chief inspector has publicly stated that they found probably 90-95% of all the weapons.

Fine (not that I believe him, but I'll go with it for now). And where are these weapons NOW?

Well, let's account for our trillion in missing military budget spending, before we complain about the accounting of a 3rd world nation that has been bombed weekely for a decade, ok?

Terrible analogy. Iraq's deception is not an accounting issue. Once more: These wepons DID exist and WERE found before and everyone knows that. Even if Iraq wanted say they were lost, there STILL would not be a reason to hinder the inspections. Indeed, that would be a reason to ASSIST the inspectors.

And again: what is the point in hiding something that doesn't exist?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters

And again: what is the point in hiding something that doesn't exist?

But russ, isn't that the point, what is the point of letting inspectors look for what you know isn't there anymore?

Then again, how do you hide something, that doesn't exist?

But this is going off topic...

It is of my opinion that the UN was the ones who decided to lift the sanctions, at the request of the US, not at the threat of them.

I know your opinion is different then that russ, no need to restate it.

 

[kat]

The member countries of the U.N. voted to remove sanctions because it was economically and politically in their best interests to do so. As is usually the case in most U.N. decisions,...member countries make decisions based on such thing as: How beneficial to us is this action, how detrimental is it to us or this or that ally/enemy country..the U.N.'s actions are only as positive or negative as the intentions and actions of the countries that support them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
But russ, isn't that the point, what is the point of letting inspectors look for what you know isn't there anymore?

Then again, how do you hide something, that doesn't exist?

You really seem to me to have all this backwards. We didn't KNOW if the stuff still existed (though we thought it did) - that's why we were looking for it. And you're right - you don't hide something that doesn' exist. Thats why you can conclude that they were hiding WMD because clearly they were hiding things.

It is of my opinion that the UN was the ones who decided to lift the sanctions, at the request of the US, not at the threat of them.

I know your opinion is different then that russ, no need to restate it.

I never said anything about threats. Your opinion and mine are pretty close, its just that I think a "request" by the US carries far more weight than you do.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters

You really seem to me to have all this backwards. We didn't KNOW if the stuff still existed (though we thought it did) - that's why we were looking for it. And you're right - you don't hide something that doesn' exist. Thats why you can conclude that they were hiding WMD because clearly they were hiding things.

Actually, I suspect that that is the part that is backwards, as you conclude that they were hiding things, without basis.

As I pointed out long ago, difficult to prove a negative and that is what was being tried, trying to force them to prove a negative, the absence of WMD's.

But anyways I still think that the UN did something good, and that was what I was looking for comment upon, but "Thanks", just the same.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Actually, I suspect that that is the part that is backwards, as you conclude that they were hiding things, without basis.

As I pointed out long ago, difficult to prove a negative and that is what was being tried, trying to force them to prove a negative, the absence of WMD's.

Inspector: What's behind that door?

Saddam: Nothing.

Inspector: May I see?

Saddam: No.


Thats called HIDING SOMETHING. Whether its hiding an empty warehouse or a warehouse full of nukes, obviously we don't know. But it would not MAKE SENSE to hide the fact that a warehouse is empty.

 

[damgo]

Democrats: Was there anything improper about the way you designed your energy policies?

Cheney: Of course not!

Democrats: Could we see who helped you design them then?

Cheney: Not a chance.

---

We didn't KNOW if the stuff still existed (though we thought it did) - that's why we were looking for it.

Really, Russ? I remember the line as "we have proof but we just can't show it to you."

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-Cheney 8/26/02

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
-Fleischer 1/9/03

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
-Powell 2/5/03

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-Bush 3/17/03

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-Franks 3/22/03

We know where they [the WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
-Rumsfeld 3/30/03

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
-Powell 5/4/03

 

[Zero]

Damgo,
The latest and greatest on the spin on WMDs is that there may not have been nearly as many as they claimed to have proof of, and it is the UN and Clinton's fault for providing the false information.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Inspector: What's behind that door?

Saddam: Nothing.

Inspector: May I see?

Saddam: What again, you just looked here last week, and the week before that, and the other week... Besides that, I told you, but don't trust me, I got rid of them all! (because of the terrorists that {I knew?} were going to attack your country, I knew I did NOT want you to have any excuses for invading my country)


This was an issue of trust, Saddam felt his was violated during the first Gulf War, when, after the UN's resolution 660, his army was still attacked and murdered, even though he had already pulled them all out of Kuwait!

Anyways, way off topic.

UN did a good thing, didn't they russ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
you just looked here last week, and the week before that, and the other week

Really? How many times exactly did the inspectors get allowed into Saddam's "Palaces"? (Hint: NONE).

This was an issue of trust, Saddam felt his was violated during the first Gulf War, when, after the UN's resolution 660, his army was still attacked and murdered, even though he had already pulled them all out of Kuwait!

What??!? If Saddam's army wasn't in Kuait when we attacked, how come we destroyed so much of it IN KUAIT? In fact, our attack was so successful mostly because we tricked Saddam into putting the bulk of his troops deep into Kuait to defend against an amphibious assault while we encircled Kuait and cut off his troops.

Anyways, way off topic.

UN did a good thing, didn't they russ?

Yeah, the UN did a good thing.

Really, Russ? I remember the line as "we have proof but we just can't show it to you."

Ok, point taken. Maybe *I* wasn't so sure then. We still haven't seen all the evidence they say they had, though apparently many people don't believe they had any. I guess people see Saddam as more trustworthy than Bush. Pathetic.

And the Cheney analogy? Not even close. Not only was everything the Dems feared might have gone on in those meetings PERFECTLY LEGAL, such meetings have a confidentiality inherrent in them. If there was a real legal argument for turning over those meeting tapes or minutes or whatever, the Dems would have made it. There wasn't - it was just a political ploy. Contrast that with Saddam's right to privacy, which was nonexistant as a result of his 1990 invasion of Kuait.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Really? How many times exactly did the inspectors get allowed into Saddam's "Palaces"? (Hint: NONE).

I know that for the longest time inspectors were not allowed in. I don't know if they were in the months leading up to the war or not. My guess would be "no".

What??!? If Saddam's army wasn't in Kuait when we attacked, how come we destroyed so much of it IN KUAIT? In fact, our attack was so successful mostly because we tricked Saddam into putting the bulk of his troops deep into Kuait to defend against an amphibious assault while we encircled Kuait and cut off his troops.

I've seen some purporting that US troops chased retreators back into Iraq and killed them. But it wasn't CNN or another well-known source.

Ok, point taken. Maybe *I* wasn't so sure then. We still haven't seen all the evidence they say they had, though apparently many people don't believe they had any. I guess people see Saddam as more trustworthy than Bush. Pathetic.

This is ad hominem and incorrect.
No one said that saddam was more trustworthy. When two people are saying contradicting things, and you believe one over the other, it's not necessarily because they find the one more trustworthy. The circumstances and evidence have a lot to do with it.
For example, I could be the biggest liar in the world, and say that my underwear has no skid marks on it. Then the someone comes and says that I do. Inspectors fail to find any skid marks. If someone believes that I have no skid marks, it does not mean that they find me more credible than the person who purported that I did.
And then there are people like me, who originally thought that he did have the weapons, but are now starting to be doubtful because of the lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with saddam's credibility. It has to do with my belief that, if what the administration told us was true, it should be fairly easy for them to produce evidence.

And the Cheney analogy? Not even close. Not only was everything the Dems feared might have gone on in those meetings PERFECTLY LEGAL, such meetings have a confidentiality inherrent in them. If there was a real legal argument for turning over those meeting tapes or minutes or whatever, the Dems would have made it. There wasn't - it was just a political ploy. Contrast that with Saddam's right to privacy, which was nonexistant as a result of his 1990 invasion of Kuait.

Straw man. Legality had nothing to do with your argument about saddam, nor damgo's about cheney. It had to do with the fact that it seemed like they had something to hide. And I don't see why an energy meeting has confidentiality inherent in it...it's not a foreign military intelligence meeting. Not only was it behind closed doors, but it was with the heads of large energy corporations.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I've seen some purporting that US troops chased retreators back into Iraq and killed them. But it wasn't CNN or another well-known source.

Actually, it was on every major news source. Its true. But it happened AFTER the war started. The events of the war are public knowledge. You guys don't have to believe me. Google.

This is ad hominem and incorrect.
No one said that saddam was more trustworthy. When two people are saying contradicting things, and you believe one over the other, it's not necessarily because they find the one more trustworthy. The circumstances and evidence have a lot to do with it.
For example, I could be the biggest liar in the world, and say that my underwear has no skid marks on it. Then the someone comes and says that I do. Inspectors fail to find any skid marks. If someone believes that I have no skid marks, it does not mean that they find me more credible than the person who purported that I did.

It is NOT ad hominem and it is NOT incorrect. Your analogy is flawed. To make it correct, you have to say that you didn't allow the inspectors to look at your underwear.

The fact that the inspectors didn't find much doesn't say much because they weren't allowed to LOOK at much. So it really did come down to Bush's word against Saddam's word - and many people chose to believe Saddam. This is not arguable.

And then there are people like me, who originally thought that he did have the weapons, but are now starting to be doubtful because of the lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with saddam's credibility. It has to do with my belief that, if what the administration told us was true, it should be fairly easy for them to produce evidence.

Well if you originally DID believe that he had WMD, then that previous part wasn't addressed to you. Why do you think I was insulting you then?

Straw man. Legality had nothing to do with your argument about saddam, nor damgo's about cheney. It had to do with the fact that it seemed like they had something to hide.

What? Legality had EVERYTHING to do with both. People are saying the war was not justified and therefore illegal. And if what Cheney did was not illegal, why was it such a big deal? I would agree it may be a little unseemly, but c'mon: these are politicians we're talking about.

And I don't see why an energy meeting has confidentiality inherent in it...it's not a foreign military intelligence meeting. Not only was it behind closed doors, but it was with the heads of large energy corporations.

Wait. There is a choice here. Its confidential because the participants WANT it to be confidential (unlike when you talk to your lawyer which is required by law to be confidential). But the Democrats wanted to take away the choice - require disclosure of private conversations. WHY should Cheney be required to disclose the contents of a private conversation?

And let me ask you guys: what is the worst possible thing you could reasonably believe happened in those meetings?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It is NOT ad hominem and it is NOT incorrect. Your analogy is flawed. To make it correct, you have to say that you didn't allow the inspectors to look at your underwear.
The fact that the inspectors didn't find much doesn't say much because they weren't allowed to LOOK at much. So it really did come down to Bush's word against Saddam's word - and many people chose to believe Saddam. This is not arguable.

It is ad hominem because you turned the argument into trying to make those on one side of an argument look like fools, instead of argueing against ideas with evidence and logic.
While I did intentionally make some similarities in my example, I did not mean for it to be completely analogous to the situation with Iraq. But you are wrong in saying that it's guy A's word against guy B's word. There is much more to it than that. That is oversimplification. I already explained how that works.

My example was supposed to show how there are other factors at play. For example, some people may believe that inspections were refutation of Bush's claims. For those people, it wasn't "I find saddam more trustworthy than bush." It was "I find the lack of findings by the inspectors to be persuasive enough to disbelieve bush."
I am not defending this viewpoint, only showing how it's not necessarily (or usually--although I suppose that it's possible that some think that way) finding guy A to be more trustworthy than guy B.

Let's look at another example. The Iraqi information minister says that gravity is a property that increases with mass. Some person in Bulgaria says "nuh-uh. mass has nothing to do with it. it's Ra power." Now, I find the Iraqi information minister to be the most untrustworthy person in the world, but I would still agree with what he's saying here.

Well if you originally DID believe that he had WMD, then that previous part wasn't addressed to you. Why do you think I was insulting you then?

I don't believe that I indicated that I thought that you were insulting me or that I felt insulted.

What? Legality had EVERYTHING to do with both. People are saying the war was not justified and therefore illegal.

What you posted did not mention legality. You were just trying to paint saddam as having something to hide. (I am not debating whether he did here, just pointing out that that was what you were doing). I don't think that you explicity or implicitly said anything about saddam's refusal to allow inspections being illegal. This is what you posted:

Inspector: What's behind that door?
Saddam: Nothing.
Inspector: May I see?
Saddam: No.

Thats called HIDING SOMETHING. Whether its hiding an empty warehouse or a warehouse full of nukes, obviously we don't know. But it would not MAKE SENSE to hide the fact that a warehouse is empty.

As you can see, there is no reference to legality.

And if what Cheney did was not illegal, why was it such a big deal? I would agree it may be a little unseemly, but c'mon: these are politicians we're talking about.

Legality is not the only factor by which I judge actions. I have a big problem with the vice president consipiring with oil companies behind closed doors about energy policy. Call me crazy...

And I will not brush it off by saying "that's what politicians do". Being accepting of it only makes it easier for them to do it.

Wait. There is a choice here. Its confidential because the participants WANT it to be confidential (unlike when you talk to your lawyer which is required by law to be confidential). But the Democrats wanted to take away the choice - require disclosure of private conversations. WHY should Cheney be required to disclose the contents of a private conversation?

Because he's not talking about his sex life here, he's talking about national governmental policy. You say "private conversation" as if it is about his sex life or something else of a personal nature, but it is a meeting about developing governmental policy that affects us ALL. Call me an idealist, but I think that my friends Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. would agree that government "in the sunshine" is a good thing. Why would you have representative government otherwise?

And let me ask you guys: what is the worst possible thing you could reasonably believe happened in those meetings?

Cheney making deals to give oil companies big deals and subsidies and favorable legislation at the expense of the country and the world, whether economically, environmentally, securitarily, or otherwise.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It was called the "Highway of death" it is the road from Kuwait into Iraq, and apparently, after the UN resolution 660 was signed, and agreed to, by all parties, US troops pursued, and slaughtered, thousands of Iraqi troops, on that stretch of road, in Iraq.

Personally, I do not blame the soldiers, as they were simply "doing their jobs", following orders.

(Lacking(?)in any knowledge that would have told them that it was a wrong thing to be doing)

Still think it's a great idea, giving the Iraqi people their own money, to help them!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
It was called the "Highway of death" it is the road from Kuwait into Iraq, and apparently, after the UN resolution 660 was signed, and agreed to, by all parties, US troops pursued, and slaughtered, thousands of Iraqi troops, on that stretch of road, in Iraq.

You're going to need to reread that resolution and recheck the timeline on the war. 660 was a DEMAND for Iraq to withdraw. There wasn't anything for Saddam to agree to or disagree with. No discussion - just remove your troops. 660 was adopted on August 2, 1990 and the war began on January 15th, 1991 after Iraq FAILED TO WITHDRAW. We spent 6 months sending troops to the region and Saddam spent those 6 months fortifying his position in Kuait. At the time the war started, the Iraqi troops were heavily intrenched in Iraq and in a posture to defend their new territorial acquisition. PLEASE spend 30 seconds with Google to verify this.

It is ad hominem because you turned the argument into trying to make those on one side of an argument look like fools, instead of argueing against ideas with evidence and logic.

I DID argue with evidence and logic and I did NOT say anthing at all about people being fools. Hell, I even acknowledged that one of my arguements was flawed. I don't know what to say other than maybe you should reread the thread from the beginning and maybe it'll sink in this time (hmm, I'm having to say that a lot lately...).

don't believe that I indicated that I thought that you were insulting me or that I felt insulted.

You seem to be placing yourself in a group of people that you think I called fools. I just figured that you were harping on it so much because you felt insulted since you felt I belittled you.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Still think it's a great idea, giving the Iraqi people their own money, to help them!

With all these side issues going, I missed part of your main point. It isn't "giving the Iraqi people their own money" its TRADE. I can't stress enough how without a proper government and/or international supervision, NONE of the trade revenue will ever be seen by Joe Iraqi.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
With all these side issues going, I missed part of your main point. It isn't "giving the Iraqi people their own money" its TRADE. I can't stress enough how without a proper government and/or international supervision, NONE of the trade revenue will ever be seen by Joe Iraqi.

I agree with that/this, but Saddam had been giving them their money, waaaay back, prior to his war with Iran, that was/is a part of the reason 'why' the war with Iran.

And, I may have erred in the resolution number, it was the one where they all agreed to cease hostilities, and respect the 'prior' borders.

It was cited in that deoxy's site's reference to the 'war crime tribunal'

(from well back in 'our' discourse, prior to the war having even started)