Can't the US just buy the oil from Iraq and the hell with France and Russia and UN?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TheStinger


The british have paid bcak evrything, infact those loan payments together with the ww2 ones are a major factor in why the US economy came to dwarf evryone else

Really? I thought we were still paying for the Napoleonic Wars. Guess I was wrong.

It depends on what you define as "payment" - money or trading conditions. Or developing country loans that disappear into corrupt politician's back pockets and get spent in Monaco.

I was also under the impression that a lot of WW2 material was purchased with basing agreements - places like Diego Garcia, Menwith Hill, Ascension Island and a lot of other places that the US got on the cheap. I think we got a good deal there, and the US haven't complained about the cost of running the bases.

[chequita guevara]

I have a question. If the sanctions regime is against Iraq's government, and we now, for all intents and purposes, constitute Iraq's government, does that mean there should be santions against us? After all, we haven't accounted for Iraq's WMDs or continued making payments on its debts.

[DanS]

I was also under the impression that a lot of WW2 material was purchased with basing agreements

That was after the UK ran out of money at the beginning of the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I have a question. If the sanctions regime is against Iraq's government, and we now, for all intents and purposes, constitute Iraq's government, does that mean there should be santions against us? After all, we haven't accounted for Iraq's WMDs or continued making payments on its debts.

I was thinking the same thought.

However, the problem is that the country is being administered by a coalition, not by the US alone. From my understanding, the country is being divided into three zones, one American, one British and one Polish. So we have three Iraq's not one.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Heck we're still waiting for the French and British to pay us back for the WW1 loans we made to them.

Not only did we pay you back in full (with interest) but the US's insistance on the repayment of these loans whilst encouraging the forgiveness of German war reparations (which were meant to pay for those loans) is one reason why the european democratic states were unable respond properly to Hitler's rearmament.

[ahasverus]

Why is it that the danish partition in the 2. gulfwar never gets mentioned or that we sending troops and administrationpersonal to postwar Iraq? On why polish have part-thread I've posted some of the numbers for the danish partition.

[Ned]

ahasverus, did the Danes have combat troops in Iraq? The Poles did.

[ahasverus]

We had a submarine and a fregate apparently thats all the units we could send, for some reason they didn't want to deplo our special forces

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I was thinking the same thought.

However, the problem is that the country is being administered by a coalition, not by the US alone. From my understanding, the country is being divided into three zones, one American, one British and one Polish. So we have three Iraq's not one.

There are three security zones within Iraq, but the internationally recognized boundaries are not changed, nor are they changeable without international recognition.

The sanctions are againt the sovereign state of Iraq, regardless of it's government, so they don't extend beyond any party other than the state of Iraq.

The dicey thing is with all these games the US has announced it intends to play - constituting a form of government (only the Iraqis or UN have legal authority to do so), privatising Iraqi national assets such as oil (only the Iraqi government has legal authority to do so, in the absense of a legal Iraqi government, nobody has the authority to change the ownership of those assets). The US is creating a situation where a future, legal Iraqi government (i.e. one that succeeds a US or "coalition" formed government) can repudiate contracts, laws, treaties, and any other acts of the illegitimate government formed by the US/coalition.

The limits on the rights and powers of occupation authorities are pretty severe after the 1949 Geneva Convention. Constituting new forms of government, new economic systems, and selling state assets to parties the occupiers choose are not among those powers.

[Ned]

MtG, I was not aware of the coalition issuing any contracts that would bind the future Iraqi government. However, I think this might be legal.

But, I agree that selling state property is not something the coalition can do. But, AFAIK, they are not doing this. Do you have any information to the contrary?

As to the "new form of government" bit, I am not sure the Geneva Convention applies. This conflict is more like the conquest of Germany or Japan. We needed to fix the governments of these two countries. Now we need to fix Iraq.

I guess this is why State objected to Annan calling the coalition an occupying power under the Geneva Convention.

[gsmoove23]

The US just recently acquiesced on the whole occupying power thing.

The resolution also would endorse the authority of the United States and Britain to govern Iraq _ and it foresees a lengthy stay. It notes that Washington and London sent a letter to the council president Thursday recognizing their responsibilities and obligations under international law "as occupying powers."

http://www.rr.com/v5/2/news/frame/0,2331,,00.html?150~ap~1~9000_408707

The letter marks the first time the United States has referred to its role in Iraq as an "occupying power," a status governed by the Geneva Conventions that would entail wide-ranging responsibilities to look after the Iraqi people. Until now, Washington has avoided the term, calling itself a "liberating force."