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

[DanS]

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.

I thought it was clear that this is what we were doing. About $2 billion of our money going to American companies to fix things up. The $3 billion in seized assets go to Iraqi wages and the remainder held in trust for reconstruction directed by Iraqis and as a foreign currency reserve.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


Exactly. The French, Germans and Russians ought to stop their pissing and moaning about Iraq at once.

I understand that both the French and Russians on now calling for a suspension of the sanctions. This is a major step in the right direction. Obviously, someone, particularly in France, has calmed down.

I am not sure you get the point... But you missed so many points on this subject ...

The problem is no longer to prevent an illegal war, but to help the Iraqis, and colaterally the US, to sort out the mess. We will soon ear you shouting after the UN :

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DQU2GMVRTEJVMCRBAEKSFEY?type=focusIraq News&storyID=2623557

[Ned]

Alright, Davout, what can the UN do better than we can?

The point about the Shi'ites is interesting and concerning at the same time. One question I have is how much of this anti-Americanism is coming from Iran? Second, what do the Kurds, Christians and Sunni Moslems think about a new Iraq run by Shi'ite clerics? Not much, I would conjecture.

[Ned]

And, Davout, which countries are willing to commit the several hundred thousand combat troops it will take to police Iraq if the US Army pulls out?

The UN does not have the resources to displace the US.

[DAVOUT]

I am sure that the Pentagone has planned something in case the Iraqis could not afford the presence of the US Army. The solution is probably quite easy since the US refrain from accepting the involvment of some old European countries.

During the 90, in Algeria the political fight between the religious and the military has caused about 100 000 deaths (without foreign intervention). We sincerely hope that a comparable desaster will not occur in Iraq. So, you are right, there is room for deep concerns.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


This is a real load of bull.

Where does it say "Saddam" or bathist in the resolutions? It says Iraq..Iraq is compelled to disarm, Iraq is supposed to pay war reparations to Kuwait and Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

As of today, the WMD's that were supposed to be the reason for the continuation of the sanctions through the 1990's have not been acounted for. It was the Us and UK that always stated that only when these things had been accounted for could the whole sancions regime be dropped.

You make up a standard...well, live by it. The Un food for oil program already met the basic needs of Iraqi's (which is why it was instituted). You want the sanctions dropped? prove Iraq is disarmed.

[PLATO]

GePap: The Sanctions state that they are against the government of Iraq. Since there is no currently functioning government, one could argue that there are currently no legal bases for sanctions. Once again, the US is trying to make the UN a relevant force in world affairs and the UN is balking.

MTG: No overflight rights by any European Country??? What continent has Germany been relocated to?? How did I miss an entire country moving to another continent?? Further, I find your arguments to be of the right heart, but of the wrong mind. Time after time, the ME has shown that it reacts positively to decisive action and that half hearted actions go punished by Arab outrage. The US will best serve its cause by quickly and efficiently getting the country up and running and force a fair government (Yes, "force"-remember, it is decisive action that the Arab street responds to.). Once the process of rebuilding is in place and the new government in control, then US forces should withdraw from the scene. These actions will do more to help the US position in the ME than trying to play to every Arab demonstration that comes down the road.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Where does it say "Saddam" or bathist in the resolutions? It says Iraq..Iraq is compelled to disarm, Iraq is supposed to pay war reparations to Kuwait and Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

As of today, the WMD's that were supposed to be the reason for the continuation of the sanctions through the 1990's have not been acounted for. It was the Us and UK that always stated that only when these things had been accounted for could the whole sancions regime be dropped.

You make up a standard...well, live by it. The Un food for oil program already met the basic needs of Iraqi's (which is why it was instituted). You want the sanctions dropped? prove Iraq is disarmed.

GePap, on the WMD issue, you and I will just have to disagree. The Saddam régime is gone. The coalition is now in charge. Even if the weapons of mass destruction existed, they are now under control of the coalition, not Iraq, which is led by the United States and the UK, permanent members of the Security Council. Iraq has been disarmed!

On the oil for food program, the UN takes a massive cut for "administration." Why should the Iraqi's pay for this?

As to reparations, I personally believe that they should be ended. The Iraqi people are just as much victims of that Nazi Saddam Hussein as are Iran and Kuwait. One lessen the United States taught the world at the end of World War II is that permanent peace can only be guaranteed when we do not punish the people of a defeated nation with reparations when the régime responsible for the damage has been totally eliminated. I find an amazing that you, GePap, have not learned this lesson.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, on the WMD issue, you and I will just have to disagree. The Saddam régime is gone. The coalition is now in charge. Even if the weapons of mass destruction existed, they are now under control of the coalition, not Iraq, which is led by the United States and the UK, permanent members of the Security Council. Iraq has been disarmed!

On the oil for food program, the UN takes a massive cut for "administration." Why should the Iraqi's pay for this?

As to reparations, I personally believe that they should be ended. The Iraqi people are just as much victims of that Nazi Saddam Hussein as are Iran and Kuwait. One lessen the United States taught the world at the end of World War II is that permanent peace can only be guaranteed when we do not punish the people of a defeated nation with reparations when the régime responsible for the damage has been totally eliminated. I find an amazing that you, GePap, have not learned this lessen.

Ned: This is on the money.

[GePap]

The UN demanded Iraq pay war reparations. Unless Kuwait and Iran waive them, tough luck for Iraq. War reparations are an old tool: you can give me one example were they failed, and that was of Germany in 1919. The Germans forced the French to pay in 1871, the French promptly paid, and that was that. I don;t buy the "lessons of hisotry" bull anyway.

GePap, on the WMD issue, you and I will just have to disagree. The Saddam régime is gone. The coalition is now in charge. Even if the weapons of mass destruction existed, they are now under control of the coalition, not Iraq, which is led by the United States and the UK, permanent members of the Security Council. Iraq has been disarmed!

"They are in the control of the coolition?" since when? As far as I know, the coolition does not know where they are.Plus, of course, the US and UK are currently the occupying powers. They adminsiter Iraq for now, and thus they are responsible for Iraq's obligations, plus the US and UK aren't supposed to have chemical and biological WMD either! Sanctions are there to insure no prohibited weapons porgrams exist in Iraq, or their fruits exist in Iraq. The uS and Uk have yet to prove either. Until they do, other states have a sound egal basis to keep sanction on Iraq.

On the oil for food program, the UN takes a massive cut for "administration." Why should the Iraqi's pay for this?

If so, why is the UN short on Money? Iraq has 40 billion in these accounts. If your claim were true (please provide figures or links), then the UN would be very well of indeed.

GePap: The Sanctions state that they are against the government of Iraq. Since there is no currently functioning government, one could argue that there are currently no legal bases for sanctions. Once again, the US is trying to make the UN a relevant force in world affairs and the UN is balking.

As I said to Ned, the US and UK are occupying powers. They are in charge of Iraq, and thus there is an authority in Iraq. And the future Iraqi government will still be under sanctions until they meet the obligations, unless the current occupying powers do it in the meantime. The notion that an area in narchy can't be placed under sanctions has no legal basis. After all, sanctions regimes are binding on all members, not only the one member being sanctioned.

[Lancer]

Nuke the French and the Russians will fall into line.

We can then pay for the nukes we used by selling French assets in the US to Iraq, using their oil to pay. This we can do for them, being the nice guys that we are.

Actually, it's Japan all over again, but this time there's oil in the ground so it gives the liberals something to whine about.

[Lincoln]

Who cares what the UN thinks about anything. Let them have their irrelevant debating club while the United States gets the job done. There is plenty of money for France and Russia and the war debts in Iraq as long as the UN does not get a hold of it. Iraq will be a wealthy country in a few years, like Kuwait. Meanwhile the UN will be *****ing about the cost of tea in China.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Who cares what the UN thinks about anything. Let them have their irrelevant debating club while the United States gets the job done. There is plenty of money for France and Russia and the war debts in Iraq as long as the UN does not get a hold of it. Iraq will be a wealthy country in a few years, like Kuwait. Meanwhile the UN will be *****ing about the cost of tea in China.

Yeah, wealthy like Nigeria and Venezuela too!
Oh, Lincol, the UN already has a hold of it, since the only legal Iraqi sales of oil must go through the UN. You see, that is the point of this discussion.

Oh, and get the job done? you mean like in Afghanistan? Yeah, we will get the JOB DONE.....

[Lincoln]

Yea, too bad the women in Afghanistan can go out in the street now unescorted. I guess we just ruin everything. We should have just left them alone so that they could harbor terorists in peace!

[Lancer]

Isn't it the UN that isn't getting the job done in Afghanistan? I thought they were in charge of the reconstruction? Perhaps I'm wrong...