fatherphil

should they be lifted or not?

Hayden

I think this question is more pertinent:

If the US can invade Iraq without UN approval, why can it not resume trade with Iraq without UN approval?

By the way, I do think sanctions should be lifted. I don't understand why it needs to be so difficult, though. Can't they just say, "Okay, everyone can trade with Iraq, but not in weaponry"?

What's going on?

HR

Happy Wonderer

The big question is, of course, the oil. Right now it is in the hands of the marines. Who signs the contract? Who spends the money?

I think the economic sanctions were a bad thing from the beginning so I support lifting them. Maybe we should reopen that pipeline to Syria?

hw

Danya

I have no problem with lifting sanctions. I do, however, think the oil for food program should not begin again until Iraqi's have their own people in place to take over the oil operations. If the UN simply gives Washington their blessing to resume, as things now stand, they will swiftly start handing out billion dollar oil contracts to Bush's buddies. Just like they are doing with the reconstruction. It's only to his advantage to get this done now, while things are still uncertain, and there is no one to claim responsiblity for handling the oil. This way he has power over the oil operations and someone else will have to try and take it away from him later...and any agreements or contracts made in the meantime will be a mess to untangle. More fog of war stuff to straighten out and lot's of money to be made in the meantime and the forseeable future.

No one should have the power to enter into any contracts that the Iraqi people themselves will end up being responsible for but had no say in making.

According to the Geneva Conventions the US is responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people...and so it should remain until we no longer occupy their country. If we are not expected to take any responsiblity for the actions of starting this war and occupying that country we will have no incentive to ever leave.

It's time that Bush and Blair and whoever else is in the coalition face up to their responsibilty and start coughing up the money and supplies it's going to take to feed the people and to clean up their war mess...and then they need to get out of there.

So far this is what the world and Iraq are calling for but there is no sign that this is what they plan to do. Until an actual blueprint is laid out and signs that they are working toward this end shown they should have no access to any kind of oil trading, selling, or production and should take sole responsiblity for making sure Iraq has enough food.

Zar

Why not lift the sanctions? Because the U.N. needs a lever to pull? I don't think that would be a good reason, especially since being anti-war meant being concerned about what we do to the Iraqi people without good cause. We have to lift them now, regardless of whose position it strengthens or weakens. There is enough strategic wrangling going on without making sanctions a football again.

Besides, all the hoopla about WMDs is becoming a joke and I doubt they're going to take all the "dual-use" stuff and build a nuke tomorrow.

Danya

Which is why the first thing I said was: "I have no problem with lifting sanctions. I do, however, think the oil for food program should not begin again until Iraqi's have their own people in place to take over the oil operations.."

That's not saying I don't want them to have food...it's saying I think until things are closer to being sorted out the coalition should have the responsibilty for providing it.

sullster

I read today that France wants the sanctions lifted. What is behind this move? Is it an attempt at rapprochement with US? Is it a French manoeuvre to get back in the game and get their hands on some Iraqui oil?

Zar

I don't know. Perhaps it is an admission of failure of some kind. It could also be that they see it as just too Machiavellian to continue starving those people and that they will have to come back and fight another day.

Its funny. I'm not saying this is your view, but for many it is impossible for the U.S. to have any hidden motives while foreign countries have almost nothing BUT hidden motives for everything they do. I have long lost my ability to swallow the amount of BS required to think like that.

Danya

Maybe they've realized that we have become obsessed with the idea of paying them back for getting in our way. I bet they thought things would improve once we had our war. In a normal world it would have calmed down but we crossed over to the Twilight Zone a long time ago. I think they realized fighting Bush over protecting Iraq's oil would end up being even uglier than the war argument...they might as well et him have it without resistance.

BTW, The only companies that have been awarded contracts so far are ours. How come no one thinks to question our own leaders motives for forcing us all into this in the first place? So far the WMD's and all their other predictions have turned out to be wrong...Cheney and Rumsfeld are handing out contracts and tax dollars to pay for them to their friends...and American's have the nerve to accuse France and Germany of trying to profit off of Iraq's war as if it were all their idea to have one in the first place.

Amazing. :banghead: