If, in its 2002 report they state "In May the US government submitted a British-drafted resolution for a new sanctions regime", I don't think they're talking about 13 years ago...TravellingGuy said:
Shame on Britain and the US.
- Thread starter *d*
- Start date
*d*:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/council/2001/0628impe.htm
Russia threatened to veto the resolution because of *gasp* oil!
France wanted more access to Iraqi *gasp* oil!
Maybe I'm wrong... maybe this is about oil after all. It's just France and Russia who are seeking it...
(Fighting links with links...)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/council/2001/0628impe.htm
Russia threatened to veto the resolution because of *gasp* oil!
France wanted more access to Iraqi *gasp* oil!
Maybe I'm wrong... maybe this is about oil after all. It's just France and Russia who are seeking it...
(Fighting links with links...)
This war and the opposition to it is all about war.
First, the UN has a vested interest in keeping the Iraqi regime in place because of the Oil for Food Program. What everyone fails to mention is that Saddam is a business partner of the UN. The UN charges Iraqi a 2.2% administrative fee for administering the oil for food program. Last year Iraqi sold approximately $25 billion worth or oil which meant a fee of approximately $500 million to the UN.
Second, it is no secret that French and Russian companies have extensive interest in Iraqi oil fields and their interest is in keeping the current regime in place because we all know that when this war is over, the oil fields will be returned to the government of Iraqi and the French and Russian companies will lose their investments.
Third, in a war ALL cities are military targets. This is not new but the coalition forces are not laying siege to the cities in the classic sense. If they were then why are the lights still on and the water still running in the capital? Why is the Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave Basra? Why is humanitarian aid being provided by the US and UK and not the Iraqi government?
interesting that *d* just pasted the link but has no balls to respond to all this other information. He/she is like all other peace activitist - they want everyone to hear what they say but do not want to listen to any one with a different opinion. Kind of sounds like the Iraqi regime, maybe that is why they are fighting so hard against the war.
First, the UN has a vested interest in keeping the Iraqi regime in place because of the Oil for Food Program. What everyone fails to mention is that Saddam is a business partner of the UN. The UN charges Iraqi a 2.2% administrative fee for administering the oil for food program. Last year Iraqi sold approximately $25 billion worth or oil which meant a fee of approximately $500 million to the UN.
Second, it is no secret that French and Russian companies have extensive interest in Iraqi oil fields and their interest is in keeping the current regime in place because we all know that when this war is over, the oil fields will be returned to the government of Iraqi and the French and Russian companies will lose their investments.
Third, in a war ALL cities are military targets. This is not new but the coalition forces are not laying siege to the cities in the classic sense. If they were then why are the lights still on and the water still running in the capital? Why is the Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave Basra? Why is humanitarian aid being provided by the US and UK and not the Iraqi government?
interesting that *d* just pasted the link but has no balls to respond to all this other information. He/she is like all other peace activitist - they want everyone to hear what they say but do not want to listen to any one with a different opinion. Kind of sounds like the Iraqi regime, maybe that is why they are fighting so hard against the war.
This war and the opposition to it is all about war.
First, the UN has a vested interest in keeping the Iraqi regime in place because of the Oil for Food Program. What everyone fails to mention is that Saddam is a business partner of the UN. The UN charges Iraqi a 2.2% administrative fee for administering the oil for food program. Last year Iraqi sold approximately $25 billion worth or oil which meant a fee of approximately $500 million to the UN.
Second, it is no secret that French and Russian companies have extensive interest in Iraqi oil fields and their interest is in keeping the current regime in place because we all know that when this war is over, the oil fields will be returned to the government of Iraqi and the French and Russian companies will lose their investments.
Third, in a war ALL cities are military targets. This is not new but the coalition forces are not laying siege to the cities in the classic sense. If they were then why are the lights still on and the water still running in the capital? Why is the Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave Basra? Why is humanitarian aid being provided by the US and UK and not the Iraqi government?
interesting that *d* just pasted the link but has no balls to respond to all this other information. He/she is like all other peace activitist - they want everyone to hear what they say but do not want to listen to any one with a different opinion. Kind of sounds like the Iraqi regime, maybe that is why they are fighting so hard against the war.
First, the UN has a vested interest in keeping the Iraqi regime in place because of the Oil for Food Program. What everyone fails to mention is that Saddam is a business partner of the UN. The UN charges Iraqi a 2.2% administrative fee for administering the oil for food program. Last year Iraqi sold approximately $25 billion worth or oil which meant a fee of approximately $500 million to the UN.
Second, it is no secret that French and Russian companies have extensive interest in Iraqi oil fields and their interest is in keeping the current regime in place because we all know that when this war is over, the oil fields will be returned to the government of Iraqi and the French and Russian companies will lose their investments.
Third, in a war ALL cities are military targets. This is not new but the coalition forces are not laying siege to the cities in the classic sense. If they were then why are the lights still on and the water still running in the capital? Why is the Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave Basra? Why is humanitarian aid being provided by the US and UK and not the Iraqi government?
interesting that *d* just pasted the link but has no balls to respond to all this other information. He/she is like all other peace activitist - they want everyone to hear what they say but do not want to listen to any one with a different opinion. Kind of sounds like the Iraqi regime, maybe that is why they are fighting so hard against the war.
King Pig posted 03-28-2003 09:13 AM
King Pig posted 03-28-2003 09:23 AM
A glitch in the matrix, perhaps?
King Pig posted 03-28-2003 09:23 AM
A glitch in the matrix, perhaps?
Neo?Goober Mcfly said:King Pig posted 03-28-2003 09:13 AM
King Pig posted 03-28-2003 09:23 AM
A glitch in the matrix, perhaps?
Is that you?
So are you saying the UN is the bad guy in this? The US bought 24% of Iraq's oil. But getting the proper civilian goods as payment was another story. Much needed goods were blocked by the US, calling it dual use goods(civilian/military) when in fact they were not.King Pig said:
Iraqi oil fields were already nationalized. French, Russian and Chinese oil companies were under contract with the Iraqi Petro Administrators to extract their oil, but to operate under the oil for food program. So why would France and Russia be worried about losing their investment? Is the future post-war Iraq government, placed by the US, going to tear up those contracts? Will the new government privatize the oil fields and only favor US oil companies? Is that their fear?
The lights and water are out in Basra and they will soon be out in Baghdad as well. The US is under a UN charter that demands an aggressor in a war to supply humanitarian aid to the civilians of its conquest. The oil for food program was shut down, so I find it difficult to see how the Iraqi regime could give any aid, except in the way of defence. P.S. much of the aid so far has come from Kuwait.
I fail to understand how by not responding to different opinions, I am not listening to those opinions? My original post was simply a link to a news item that hit me emotionally. Must I respond to everyones opinion about it? I respond when I can and to whom I wish. Just as you do.
d
Last edited:
Regarding "Dual use" products
*d*: Are you saying the UN should trust the Iraqi government to use the chlorine (for example) exclusively for its humanitarian potential?
*d*: Are you saying the UN should trust the Iraqi government to use the chlorine (for example) exclusively for its humanitarian potential?
B
BigGuy26
Time's up
I think it would be a great idea to close this thread as well. Isn't everyone exhausted by all of the war threads?
I think it would be a great idea to close this thread as well. Isn't everyone exhausted by all of the war threads?
Re: A few thoughts
d
That's possible. But its a crazy world where in order to help people you must beat them down to do it.onthebottom said:
The Saudis suggested a possible solution to end the war a few days ago. I'm not sure of the details, but they suggested a temporary cease fire to see if opening up negotiations to disarm Iraq's WMD would now work. The troubled Iraqi regime could have a change of heart. But the coalition declined, most likely because the new war objective is regime change.
d
Re: Regarding "Dual use" products
d
No. That's why there was an extension of the existing resolution on sanctions, where products like chlorine could be monitored on its use. The only problem with this resolution is the stubborn countries that block questionable goods as dual use when in fact they are not.Goober Mcfly said:
d
The Iraqi regime can end the war at any time. All they have to do is pick up a white flag, and march out of Baghdad.
Of course regime change is the objective. Saddam has proven he cannot be trusted, he's brutally oppressing his people, he's threatened the western world, he's been uncooperative with the UN, and he's developped/used WMD.
Bush said from the outset that either he leaves voluntarily, or by force. He chose to stay. Mr. Hussein, meet Mr. Consequences.
And what about the Iraqi soldiers shooting at people trying to flee Basra? Oh, right, they're in the right because the US is evil. My mistake.
Of course regime change is the objective. Saddam has proven he cannot be trusted, he's brutally oppressing his people, he's threatened the western world, he's been uncooperative with the UN, and he's developped/used WMD.
Bush said from the outset that either he leaves voluntarily, or by force. He chose to stay. Mr. Hussein, meet Mr. Consequences.
And what about the Iraqi soldiers shooting at people trying to flee Basra? Oh, right, they're in the right because the US is evil. My mistake.
Re: Re: Re: Shame on Iraq
d
Up until 1998, 90 to 95% of Iraq's WMD and their facilities to make them were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors. The weapons inspectors of last month believed that they were only a few months away from confirming the existance, or not, of the remaining 5 to 10%. The wait was almost over.WhOiSyOdAdDy? said:
d
The wait was almost over...
... and then:
1998
12 Jan Iraq announces that it will bar further inspections by UNSCOM team led by Scott Ritter because of "imbalance" of US and UK inspectors
4 Apr Iraq allows access to presidential sites
5 Aug Iraq's RCC and Ba'ath Party Command halt cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA, end no-notice inspections; monitoring activities are allowed to continue
14 Nov Saddam allows UNSCOM to return to Iraq
9-14 Dec UNSCOM team obstructed during inspections of suspect sites
19 Dec Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed back in Iraq
2000
30 Nov Iraq rejects UN Secretary-General offer to discuss weapons inspections
2001
7 Mar UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
18 Apr UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
1 May UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
3 Sep Iraq orders 5 UN Oil-for-Food workers to leave Baghdad without consulting UN
2002
17 Sep Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
8 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1441 outlining provisions for enhanced weapons inspections
13 Nov Iraq accepts RES 1441
source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#1999
Wow. They really were hot and horny about letting the UN disarm that last 5-10%, weren't they? Cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, etc. And, of course, there's no way any more Weapons of Mass Destruction could have been developped in that time, could they?
</sarcasm>
... and then:
1998
12 Jan Iraq announces that it will bar further inspections by UNSCOM team led by Scott Ritter because of "imbalance" of US and UK inspectors
4 Apr Iraq allows access to presidential sites
5 Aug Iraq's RCC and Ba'ath Party Command halt cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA, end no-notice inspections; monitoring activities are allowed to continue
14 Nov Saddam allows UNSCOM to return to Iraq
9-14 Dec UNSCOM team obstructed during inspections of suspect sites
19 Dec Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed back in Iraq
2000
30 Nov Iraq rejects UN Secretary-General offer to discuss weapons inspections
2001
7 Mar UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
18 Apr UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
1 May UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
3 Sep Iraq orders 5 UN Oil-for-Food workers to leave Baghdad without consulting UN
2002
17 Sep Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
8 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1441 outlining provisions for enhanced weapons inspections
13 Nov Iraq accepts RES 1441
source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#1999
Wow. They really were hot and horny about letting the UN disarm that last 5-10%, weren't they? Cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, etc. And, of course, there's no way any more Weapons of Mass Destruction could have been developped in that time, could they?
</sarcasm>
Goober M
Of course Saddam is a poor leader. No argument here. But he has not threatened the western world. There is zero evidence of that. I found it interesting that a civilian receiving humanitarian aid in Umm al Qasi was quoted as saying to CNN that he hated Saddam Hussein, but he hated the US as well.
d
Of course Saddam is a poor leader. No argument here. But he has not threatened the western world. There is zero evidence of that. I found it interesting that a civilian receiving humanitarian aid in Umm al Qasi was quoted as saying to CNN that he hated Saddam Hussein, but he hated the US as well.
d
