Russia wants Iraqi children to starve - because of oil

[Felch]

The purpose behind sanctions was to make it hard for the regime to produce and develop WMDs. Now the sanctions are no longer needed. Having sanctions up will not keep you safe. They won't prevent bandits from getting chemical or biological weapons. They are simply a crime against the Iraqi people at this point.

[Az]

WMDs don't kill people, people with WMD kill people.

I wanted to post this, but thought it would be too corny.

I can also see this point, Azazel. But someone has to officially report to the UN that Iraq is WMD-free. Don't you think so? After all, as Frogger indicated, some rogue (even m.b. terrorist) groups inside Iraq may come into possession of these WMDs if they ever existed.

If there are WMD, why the resistance to the war in the first place?! the rogue terrorist groups are not going to be intimidated by sanctions, you know.

I don't think that sanctions were a good idea. I think that removing Saddam was a good idea.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Felch X
It's very consistent as far as Americans are concerned. We hated Saddam, and now he's gone.

Yes, you are very consistent in this part. Not the WMD part, however.

You all coddled him because Russia has a hard on for anybody that brutalizes his own people the way Stalin did, and now you're pissed because we beat him.

If Russia still coddles such kind of regimes, it's not because of love. It's simply because Russia needs markets, but 'civilized' markets are not quite accessible due to various discriminatory economic restrictions.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Azazel
If there are WMD, why the resistance to the war in the first place?!

I can ask a similar question. If there were/are WMDs and they have not been found, then the purpose of the war has not been achieved?

Not that I believe that it was the true purpose of the war, I simply try to play the game here.

the rogue terrorist groups are not going to be intimidated by sanctions, you know.

I agree. I don't suggest to keep the sanctions. I just say that Russia has a point in this recent demarche. There should be some solid closure in the UN to the matter of sanctions.

[Az]

If Russia still coddles such kind of regimes, it's not because of love. It's simply because Russia needs markets, but 'civilized' markets are not quite accessible due to various discriminatory economic restrictions.

It's called 'quality control'.

I can ask a similar question. If there were/are WMDs and they have not been found, then the purpose of the war has not been achieved?

You can ask the US government that question. For me, the war was about bringing a better government for the people of Iraq.

I agree. I don't suggest to keep the sanctions. I just say that Russia has a point in this recent demarche. There should be some solid closure in the UN to the matter of sanctions.

Considering the fact that they were calling for the abolishment of the sanctions in the 90s, NO, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A POINT.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Felch X
The purpose behind sanctions was to make it hard for the regime to produce and develop WMDs. Now the sanctions are no longer needed. Having sanctions up will not keep you safe. They won't prevent bandits from getting chemical or biological weapons. They are simply a crime against the Iraqi people at this point.

OK, these are good points. Argue this at the UN.

[Az]

what's the point if it can be shot down by Russia, just because?



I am telling you people, as long as decisions are made by parties that are interested in certain kinds of processes, Expecting justice from the UNSC, is similar to expecting justice from a thug.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Azazel

If Russia still coddles such kind of regimes, it's not because of love. It's simply because Russia needs markets, but 'civilized' markets are not quite accessible due to various discriminatory economic restrictions.

It's called 'quality control'.

That's partly true. But large-partly, it is due to discriminatory economic restrictions.

I can ask a similar question. If there were/are WMDs and they have not been found, then the purpose of the war has not been achieved?

You can ask the US government that question. For me, the war was about bringing a better government for the people of Iraq.

But we are talking about the US government here, not about you!

Considering the fact that they were calling for the abolishment of the sanctions in the 90s, NO, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A POINT.

At least, there is a procedural point.

[Shi Huangdi]

"But as for American hardliners... please, you have no high moral ground here whatsoever. "

The US position under Clinton was that sanctions would be effective in keeping Saddam from having WMD. No Saddam, no more sanctions needed. Hardly a hypocritical position.

The US policy under Bush was to stop relying on sanction and rely on war instead to get the job done.

" sure hope this idiocy will be smoothed over, I sure hope it is only a bluff to raise the Russian bargaining power, and I really really hope Chirac and Schröder will ask Putin to stop it."

I hope so, Spiffor. Of course if Chirac is as bad as you have been describing it might not be beyond him to maintain these sanctions as some part of geopolitical powerplay. And Schroder seems to have simply made his country a French vassal state.

I don't hold much hope that the people of Russia will put any pressure on their government, they are not a matured democracy like France and to a lesser extent Germany are. I hope that it will be shown that your people's concern for the Iraqi people was genuine, and not part of some failed geopolitical anti-US powerplay, and that you can insist that your governments end the sanctions and drop the debt.

[Spiffor]

I have just thought there are two elements letting hope Chirac will indeed try to calm down Putin :

- the diplomatic dialogue between France and the USA has been reopened, and Chirac has spoken 20 minutes with Bush yesterday (it was such big news in France, but I wonder if it has been covered at all in the US )

- There has been a deep hate towards the sanction regime in the French public opinion. Supporting Russia on this one could alienate both the atlantists (mostly right-wing people that give a high value to the relationship with the US) and the left-wing people opposed to the embargo. The lefty parties would love to have an opportunity to bash Chirac after these months of consensus

[Shi Huangdi]

So do you think if Chirac decides to be an idiot here Parliamentary opposition could be enough to stop him? Chirac does come from the right and I have wondered how much the right will tolerate in terms of pure antagonization of the US. Do you think if Chirac backs Russia here he could be undermined by a coalition of leftist and atlanticist parlimentarians?

[DanS]

it was such big news in France, but I wonder if it has been covered at all in the US

It was covered. Also covered was the fact that there was an elaborate process (Chirac on his knees, probably in front of Blair) for Bush to agree to the telephone call.

Well, at least they're now talking. More than can be said for Bush-Schroeder.

[Spiffor]

"Undermined" is not the right word, at least not legally : in France, party discipline is much much higher than in the US, and Chrac's party's representative owe him everything. But Chirac could annoy a good chunk of his population, which isn't the objective.

Currently, Chirac's government is waging big reforms about retirement, which can be ghastly unpopular and lead to massive strikes and renegotiations, if the population isn't brainwashed enough.

There is a history behind Chirac wanted to keep a good image even though his power isn't threatened :
The previous right-wing government, under Prime Minister Juppé had a terrible communication and arrogance, which led to the defeat in the parliamentary elections of 1997, and his communication has become the very counter-example of what a right wing government should do. Our government hopes to pass unpopular reforms with minimal ruckus, and uses diversions to do this : it was first domestic security, then car accidents, then war in Iraq. The latter was a blessing since almost the whole french population agreed with its leaders.

The end of the war in Iraq put the emphasis on domestic problems, which are just as annoying for Chirac as for Bush

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
It was covered. Also covered was the fact that there was an elaborate process (Chirac on his knees, probably in front of Blair) for Bush to agree to the telephone call.

Strangley enough, this hasn't been covered at all here. When listening to the media, you could really think Chirac has casually called Bush, and Bush casually picked up the phone
Also, the media insisted that Chirac thought the discussion was "positive". Much less has been told about the White House calling this discussion "professional"

[The Vagabond]

Back to the topic of this thread, it is not yet clear that Russia is going to insist on that. I have not yet seen any discussion of the issue on the Russian news sites. As far as I understand, what Russia wants is just to have some talk at the UN before lifting the sanctions, rather than lifting them automatically.