Bush wants to lift the oil and trade sanction on Iraq so they can start exporting oil money to U.S. firms for the “re-building of iraq”. France and Russia wants U.N. to control imports and exports. What do the people of Iraq want? Who cares? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030508/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_sanctions_14
It gets better - the US now wants to award money to the families of those killed on september 11 from seized Iraqi assets. And it now emerges that Halliburton aren't being paid solely to put out oilhead fires, but to run the oil fields for an indefinite period as well.
If we keep sanctions up things wont get better in Iraq. How are they supposed to become a prosperous country without trade? Please note that before the war France wanted to ease trade restrictions but now want to keep them. I personally thing now that Saddam's regiem has fallen none of the old crud (debts, trade restrictions, etc) should apply to them. The Iraq those deals were made with died when we invaded. And about the oil: They would be welcome to sell it to us at market price but we will in no way force them. They will be able to sell to whoever they wish or not at all. Most likly they will trade with us just because we have the biggest damand and the biggest wallet but thats their choice. And Sparky, indefinite dosnt mean eternal.
U.S. will give Iraq money to buy Iraqi oil Iraq will give back money to U.S. to re-build iraq = U.S. gets jobs in Iraq U.S. corporations get rich on iraq oil money
Correct Clockwood. And if you cancel sanctions now, the Oil for food program gets shut down as well, since it's part and parcel of the sanctions imposed in 661. Since right now Iraq needs humanitarian aid more than a free market, a situation that may only last 6 months or so, it makes sense to table the discussion for the immediate future and concentrate on the problem at hand, since that problem is putting people's lives at risk. Instead, the US wants to chuck sanctions that call for UN oversight of the sale of oil. Something's fishy in the state of denmark.
Iraq gets re-built Iraq becomes properous Iraqi standard of living improves Iraqi nation happy and don't forget that The USA is not the only oil consuming country in the world you know. I feel reasonably confident that other countries just might want to buy Iraqi oil as well.
aghart, Also missing the point that oil is getting a higher priority than humanitarian work in Iraq right now. Frankly, if the US just came out and said "Okay, we admit it. We want the oil - we have the biggest stick - so we're taking the oil", I'd almost feel better off, at least it wouldn't be such a lot of BS to have to listen to in the news all the time.
aghart True, but I wonder what the exact consumption of say North America is compared to other continents? For instance, and these are old numbers, about 10 years ago, and these numbers were in a biology book, North America alone goes through 12.5 million gallons of fuel an hour! Yes, oil reserves are going to last 75 years my ass!
You have a point sparks, I would like to see humanitarian aid effort 'move up a gear' as well. As for the oil. the world is awash with oil at the moment, and a shortage in the forseeable future is I think unlikely. we have managed to survive with only small quantities of Iraqi oil for years, I did not, do not believe the notion that all the US is interested in is the oil. But the Oil revenues are important to 'Iraq' because that is the only natural resource they have and the only export of any substance. But I do agree it should be possible to do both at the same time.
Re: aghart No arguments at all, but my point is that just about everyone who is against the US is saying that George Bush & co are shooting from the hip, have knee jerk reactions, have made up their minds in no time at all and gone in with guns blazing. I know of NO western politician, particulaly a US president who can only be in office for a maximum of 8 years, who thinks about problems 75 years in advance. I think you are giving them too much credit.
Some interesting info I'm not sure how many of you know this, but the Consel General of New York, Canada's own, Pamela Wallin, did a speech last night in New York. Canada, not Saudi Arabia, exports more oil to the U.S. It took me aback, and she said that the people in the audience almost fell off of their chairs-they couldn't believe it either!
Re: Some interesting info I did a quick search to find some proof. Very interesting indeed: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt
Re: Re: Some interesting info Wow!, I noted with interest that even with Saddam in power the USA was importing far more Iraqi Oil than Kuwaiti, and the Iraqi oil imports were not much lower than from Saudi Arabia. Two major facts here, 1. The USA already has major access to Iraqi oil 2. The USA gets it's oil from numerous sources and is not totally dependent on any single region. Surely even the diehard critics of everything US must accept that this evidence cast's serious doubt on their claims that this war was all about 'getting contro' of Iraqi oil.
It would help that argument tremendously if: 1) Halliburton had not been issued a contract to pump Iraqi oil for an indefinite period - a contract the details of which were kept secret until now, let alone the sweetheart deal made to get the contract. 2) The US was not after submitting a resolution to end UN Sanctions at a time when what's needed for the good of the Iraqi people is humanitarian aid, not foreign trade.
Can't argue there, prime example of how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But the sanctions thing, not really feasible to end sanctions with Saddam in power, it would have given him further credibility in the eyes of his supporters. It proves one thing though. Sanctions do not work and are not a viable alternative to direct action.
aghart, You're incorrect about the sanctions. First off the bat, noone is suggesting that they should have been lifted with Hussein in power (though they would have been had certain conditions been met). What is being said, by me and others, is that lifting them now would harm humanitarian aid and only benefit american corporate interests. Secondly, the sanctions do work. The problem wasn't the sanctions themselves, it was the corruption involved in the final stage of distributing food in Iraq. Note that this problem wasn't there in Northern Iraq, and there no healthcare problems arose as a result. Thirdly, the prime agents in blocking the import of medical and humanitarian items were the US and UK representatives on the monitoring committee, so it's a bit rich for either nation to claim sanctions were causing harm. Fourthly, if sanctions aren't a viable alternative to direct action, then the world is screwed.
"Maybe, but failure to lift them now that saddam has gone would lead to massive criticisim of the Coalition, It's a no win situation" How? The coalition didn't impose the sanctions and they are supposedly bound by treaties they signed when joining the UN to implement the sanctions the UN called for and not to lift them until the UN calls for that. "The problem was that the building of palaces' and the funding of the secret police and other 'vital' appratus of the regime is the corruption you are talking about, and the final distribution is part of the sanctions package and clearly cannot be controlled so sanctions do not work. " The funding of palace building came through smuggled oil breaking through sanctions. The OFF program did NOT deliver money to Iraq, it delivered PRODUCTS - food, medical equipment and supplies, etc. "Also the fact that Northern Iraq had it easier may be to the joint factors of Kurdish strength and the joint presence of the US Air Force and The Royal Air Force in the sky's above." Have I not made it clear that that was why Saddam couldn't corrupt the OFF program there? "my understanding is that there was a list of what was and what wasn't classed as humanitarian" Nope. "Humanitarian" is the word used in Res.661 and the monitoring committee vetted each request for equipment and supplies individually. "Dialog, discussion, compromise are the viable alternative to direct action, but people like you ( I accept that you have the best of intentions) cannot seem to get your head round the fact that there are times when direct action is required." The problem here is not the use of force aghart, I can accept that that is required sometimes (and on some occasions it hasn't been used when needed with horrific results). But THIS time, the use of force broke international law and did not do so for noble motives.
Lifting the Iraqi sanctions is all about control of trade in Iraq. Sanctions were imposed in iraq after the first gulf war because Saddam could not be trusted with money he got from trading his oil. Lifting the sanctions while UN inspectors were combing the country BEFORE the war would have been the best thing for the IRAQI PEOPLE. This is what France wanted. This war changed all that so we can not continue to talk about the lifting of sanctions the same way. Now, AFTER the war, U.S. controls Iraq for U.S. interest (not iraq interest). France and Russia do not want sanctions lifted because they do not trust U.S. (and rightly so) with money they will get from Iraqi oil. Lifting sanctions now will not help Iraqi population as much as it will enrich the U.S. Also, about sanctions which I’ve discussed in other threads: · Iraq sanctions 1991-1998 directly caused over 1 million deaths (1/2 million children under 5). It is much worse than any war. Given the choice of imposing sanctions (like those imposed on iraq) or nuclear bomb, I would choose nuclear bomb any day. · UN reports verify that Saddam’s government did a good job distributing food. · Yes Saddam spent a lot of money on palaces but the numbers continue to be debated. Some estimate that only 3% was used for palace building (which wouldn’t have made any significant difference in the economy. · The sanctions and oil for food program became heavily politicized by U.S. and Britain with the “dual-use” clauses which allowed U.S to “hold” medicines and equipment about to enter Iraq.
Like I was saying, the political fighting is going to be about who get's to manage Iraq oil money called: IRAQI ASSISTANCE FUND The U.S. proposal, endorsed by Britain and Spain, would deposit Iraqi oil revenues in an 'Iraqi Assistance Fund' for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes, to be held by the Iraqi Central Bank, currently managed by Peter McPherson, a former deputy U.S. Treasury secretary. The fund would have an advisory board that would include officials appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) as well as the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites), the World Bank (news - web sites) and others. This group would audit expenditures. But decisions on where to spend the money would be made mainly by the United States and Britain, with perhaps some input from other allies, like Australia, who sent some troops to the effort to oust President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government. full text here
