 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
They're just using the UN sanctions as leverage to force Iraq to accept contracts signed by Saddam...or something like that.
Anyone know exactly what the SOBs are up to by refusing to lift sanctions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
For one, they're putting emphasis back on WMD which we can be sure Bush does not want, at least not until he finds some. It might also be further arm-twisting to get UNSCOM involved again and greater UN influence in general. Oh, and they also want oil contracts, which is fine, give em some, I think it should be on our top priority to show we didn't invade the country for the plum oil contracts, especially since WMDs are not turning up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Trying to gain political leverage in determining Iraq's future. We can simply ignore the sanctions though and encourage other nations to do so as well. |
Sure, ignore SC resolutions even though it was SC resolutions that supposedly validate our war on Iraq. Good call!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
"There is no Iraqi government. Who sells the oil? Who gets the money? There isn't an Iraqi diplomat at the UN right now."
Tricky question. Perhaps the best way to do this is use the value of the extracted oil to first pay oil workers, then use profits to buy food/medicine for the Iraqi people?
"Don't forget, even the Saudis object to lifting of the sanctions until there is a new Iraqi government."
Of course. An end to sanctions would push oil prices down, which would be for the Saudis.
"As for the thread title: no, the US can not. It would be ilegal and thus legal actions and sanctions could be brought against anyone buying or selling Iraqi oil outside of the Oil for Food program."
Right, like they are going to place sanctions against the US. We can go right ahead here and prove the worthlessness of international law.
"The sanctions say IRAQ, not SADDAM"
Except there is no Iraqi government to have WMDs, so the Iraqi are incapacitated in that respect. And whatever the sanctions say, we know what the purpose of them are, and right now they are meaningless and accomplishing nothing.
"Newsflash....violent transitions of government are invariably messy. If you are not prepared to deal with the problems, don't do it in the first place. otherwise, grow up and deal wih the consequences of your actions."
We are dealing with the problems. One way to deal with the problem of rebuilding Iraq is a swift and immediate end to the sanctions.
"They are trying to demand the rule of international law. Only an act by the UNSC can lift sanctions legally. If the US can declare an end to sanctions by fiat, then what is the point of the UNSC? I would argue the US has already broken the UNSC, but most of the rest of the world considers it very important."
Then by their actions they are undermining the UNSC. Insisting on a UNSC resolution to end sanctions would be fine, and in fact the USA was preparing a resolution that would do that. By opposing a UNSC resolution. it puts the USA in a situation where it would have to violate international law again if it wants to trade with Iraq.
Of course, I would be fine just fine with telling the UN to shove it. I don't think the UN is a positive influence, and I would like to see their influence undermined, and I would be just happy to see international law be proved worthless. Maybe if we defy the UN here, other nations will start defying the UN more openly too and follow our precedent.
However, that doesn't mean I want France and Russia to continue their UN harming actions. Keeping up these Sanctions would be a moral wrong and they should be ended now, so Iraq can trade with the entire world, including France and Russia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
With the Food For Oil program still in place and responsible leadership in Baghdad this is hardly a problem and if the US and Britain cared about the Iraqi people a lick more then France, Germany and Russia or vice versa I'll eat my shoe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
Of course we can. We can also try to take the position on behalf of our new colony that prior contracts and debts they have with third nations are void.
We wouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot wrt our position regarding Cuban nationalizations and contracts, because we're the only country embargoing Cuba, and nobody expects consistent foreign policy from the US anyway.
This is a great idea, Lancer. We buy the oil (or better yet, privatize the nationalized oil industry, and let contracts to US firms to develop and operate the oil fields, and just pay the Iraqis a royalty). We install permanent, or at least open-ended military bases wherever we want in Iraq. We void Iraqs foreign debts or contracts, even though there's no legal way we can do that, except by making Iraq totally dependent on our trade and largesse.
Then we tell the rest of those uppity A-rabs that this isn't about oil, it isn't a war on Islam, it isn't imperialism, it's really about WMD and human rights. Just don't visit any high-rises or promininent landmarks in the next 50,000 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
I say, put it to a vote. If the UN votes no, so be it. But, I would then break relations with France and Russia and freeze all their assets in the US.
Last edited by Ned on 21-04-2003 at 23:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Tossing the sanctions against Iraq buy selling oil to those willing to buy...and rebuilding infrastructure with the money is hurting Islam how? >>>Buying<<< oil from Iraq and giving them the money is giving fundamentalists a "wet Dream" in what way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NY Hoya
|
|
NY, NY
Mar 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Tossing the sanctions against Iraq buy selling oil to those willing to buy...and rebuilding infrastructure with the money is hurting Islam how? >>>Buying<<< oil from Iraq and giving them the money is giving fundamentalists a "wet Dream" in what way? |
probably because it helps him to score cheap political points
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Tossing the sanctions against Iraq buy selling oil to those willing to buy...and rebuilding infrastructure with the money is hurting Islam how? >>>Buying<<< oil from Iraq and giving them the money is giving fundamentalists a "wet Dream" in what way? |
Let's say you buy that store where you work, and afterwords, I drive a truck through your store, then tell you "hey, good buddy, don't worry about that, you've got a nice store there, I'll bring some of my workers to load this stuff up and sell it for you, and after I pay my people for the cost of getting your stuff packed up and sold (hey, I'm not doing this for my health, you know, good buddy), I'll use the rest of the money to fix your store right up, good as new. Meanwhile, till I get done with that, I'll run things, but I'll keep you up to speed on how things are going, and let you know what you've got in inventory and in the bank. Don't worry about a thing, I've got you covered. 
We don't need to "buy" oil from Iraq. Oil is a global commodity, you buy the particular grade from whatever shipping point is convenient. The first problem is getting it out of the fields anyway, and that'll take a lot longer to solve than sanctions will.
If we hire our own pet companies to start working in Iraqi oilfields (we've already started on this part), then we start playing the global oil market by deciding how much we buy and for what price, that plays with every oil producing and oil consuming economy in the world, and it doesn't matter if there's no immediate effect at all, we're controlling the Iraqi oil resources. Bingo! Try telling people it's not about oil. Even if you could sell refrigerators to Eskimos, you can't sell that one to anybody.
Then we take their money (held in trust for them, until we install a "responsible" government ), and we give contracts to our companies to rebuild their infrastructure, which has been trashed by two wars we fought against them, combined with sanctions for which we were the leading proponent, try to convince the arab street that this isn't about imperialism.
We want to fix their infrastructure and award the contracts for doing so to American and American ass-kissing countries' firms, then we can suck up the costs. If we want them to pay for it, then we can get out, turn the country over, and let them handle it.
The US has little to no credibility in the Arab world, or for that matter, in most of the world. The moment we start using Iraqi oil "in trust" and pork-barreling our companies with it, we start reducing what little credibility we have. Same thing with the US shutting international organizations or other countries out of Iraq - you control foreign contacts and foreign relations for your territories and colonies, not for sovereign nations. We're an occupying power, not lord and master, and that gives us far more obligations than it gives us rights.
Adam Smith - hey, nobody gives a **** about the people of Iraq, unless and to the extent that it coincides with a countries' own interests. It's just more convenient to say "for the Iraqi people" than to be honest and say "because we want to make a ton of money, and who cares about the rest of that crap."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
That was a pretty good one Mike. The longer winded you get the farther you have to go to twist things around, the better my pov seems.
You do it like this:
I say, "I don't like cats".
You say, that because I don't like cats, I favor dogs, but not just dogs, dogs that eat cats. Bad dogs, the kind that chase mail men. You feel that my pro dog bias against mail men is bordering on racism, because many mail men are bringing checks to welfare people, many of whom you accuse me of believing are umm, orange. (I'd prefer not to get banned) Since racism is against the rules, you give me a weeks ban. BUT! I'm lucky. Had I said that I don't like snakes, it would be 2 weeks, minimum.
You make such stuff sound better, but essencially, it's the same. However there's something else, facts. You flash em out like 100 dollar bills. ...like there were 443 bitings of mailmen by dogs, but only three cats bit mailmen, in the lower 48 states, excluding Maine, where there are insufficient orange people.
After one of you twists of logic, I dread the thought of trying to untwine it, knowing that doing so will just bring on an even longer one.
:smile:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Shi, I see on the tube, CNN, MSNBC, that "we need to undo the damage we've done to the alliances we've built up over decades, that president Bush is destroying...blah blah blah.
In fact, it's the French, Germans and Russians that threw away their relationship with us...and they are coming around. Two steps forward, one back...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2003 21:36
Anyone else see something wrong with this?
Glad you like it Mike. 
|