Post #83,831
2/24/03 4:59:32 PM
|
WashPost said it was legal.
According to [link|http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm|this] story which appears to be a copy of a Washington Post story from 2/20/2000. As secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War, Richard B. Cheney played a key role in the U.S.-led military coalition that forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait. But as chief executive officer of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based maker of oil equipment, Cheney recently held a major stake in Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., two American players in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry. While the United States and Britain wage almost daily airstrikes against military installations in northern and southern Iraq, U.S. companies, executives and even some architects of American policy toward Iraq are doing business with Saddam Hussein's government and helping to rebuild its battered oil industry. Though perfectly legal, the growing U.S.-Iraqi commerce has been kept quiet by both sides because it seems to fly in the face of Washington's commitment to "regime change" in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's claim to be defying the world's lone superpower. The United Nations also helps both countries avoid embarrassment by treating the business arrangements as confidential.
The trade is permitted under the "oil for food" deal, a humanitarian exemption from the U.N. trade embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allows Iraq to sell oil and use the proceeds, under U.N. supervision, to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, as well as spare parts to keep the oil flowing.
Placing bids through overseas subsidiaries and affiliates, more than a dozen U.S. firms have signed millions of dollars in contracts with Baghdad for oil-related equipment since the summer of 1998, according to diplomats, industry officials and U.N. documents.
"The United States is the cradle of the international oil industry," said James Placke, who tracks Persian Gulf oil production for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "A lot of the equipment in Iraq's oil industry was originally made in America, and if you want spare parts, you go back to the original supplier." Emphasis added. This is yet another illustration of my contention that the sanctions were never going to work as a long-term constraint on Saddam. If the UN and the US wanted the Oil for Food program to work, then spare parts from US companies were required. My $0.02. Carry on. :-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #83,833
2/24/03 5:03:06 PM
|
Reality. What a concept.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #83,836
2/24/03 5:19:20 PM
|
Define "work".
Have the sanctions worked? I'd say that depends on their aim. I don't see Iraq in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran or anywhere else. So far the inspectors have found no WMD.
If Iraqi intentions were to invade another nation and the sanctions were put into place to prevent Iraq from doing that, then clearly the sanctions have worked (now if we could only get some one to contain Dub, Rummie, et. al.)
Personally I oppose the sanctions, but on humanitarian grounds. I don't think we'll ever overcome an adversary by becoming just like him. And I think all this saber-rattling belies a lack of faith in our system. What we're saying is that we're not sure if given a choice, our way looks better. Therefore, if you're not going to play ball by our rules, we'll bomb you until you do.
I seem to recall a European country in the late 30's and early 40's that had the same ideas.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #83,838
2/24/03 5:40:16 PM
|
No sanctions haven't worked - they haven't made Iraq comply.
Sanctions were imposed for several reasons, not just to keep Saddam from invading his neighbors. [link|http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2002/res1409.htm|UN SCR 1409] renewed sanctions against Iraq for 180 days. Convinced of the need as a temporary measure to continue to provide for the civilian needs of the Iraqi people until the fulfilment by the Government of Iraq of the relevant resolutions, including notably resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and 1284 (1999), allows the Council to take further action with regard to the prohibitions referred to in resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 in accordance with the provisions of these resolutions, o o o [link|http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm|Resolution 687] covers the 1991 cease fire and UNSCOM. Note that UNSCOM's mission wasn't just inspection but was also "monitoring" Iraq. I.e. after the inspections were over, UNSCOM would continue to watch Iraq to make sure it didn't reconstitute its weapons programs. They've not been able to start the monitoring phase, even after 12 years. 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; 12 years later, they're having to destroy prohibited missiles again. So even if no WMDs have yet been found by UNMOVIC, that doesn't mean that Iraq has complied with the relevant Security Council resolutions. If Iraq dumped its chemical and biological weapons materials in a trench in the desert without UNSCOM or UNMOVIC present, it was in violation of 687. There are probably dozens of other things like this I could point out, but will let others do so if so inclined. I think it shows that while sanctions have had some impact on Saddam's military, they haven't achieved their goal - making Iraq comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions. The longer sanctions go on, the more porous they'll become, IMO. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #83,839
2/24/03 5:45:43 PM
|
So whaddya think..we need one more resolution, right? ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #83,858
2/24/03 7:04:39 PM
|
Thanks for a cant-free report. Circle-jerk present.
It does support the rationale for 'remedying' Iraq's non-compliance in the ways noted.
But a circle jerk ensues: It is The United Nations' ox which has been gored. The Dubya cabal has had Iraq in its sights since Daddy made a bad call, in 20/20 hindsight (this allegation is of the sort.. the usual never-to-be proven-in a Court of Law kind).
Additionally, various and unsatisfying allegations attempting to connect Saddam with Al-Q have been floated, along with other allegations, with the net result of this Admin attempting to portray Iraq as ~ The Next Best Target in (our self-defined set of) Evil States / the Domino theory of Vietnam redux.
Ergo: IF the UN cannot be coerced, cajoled, convinced! to support this planned invasion and the US goes ahead anyway: We shall be as guilty of 'noncompliance with the law' as is Iraq demonstrated to be.
(Of course we can always say - as Dubya has effectively 'said': So What? *OUR* Decision is that Iraq Makes Us Feel UnSafe. And this is enough to justify our doing Anything, anyWhere anyTime.)
Take yer pick; WHICH "UN Rulez" you wanna go by today.. Phony 'votes of Congress to abrogate Its Own Constitutional authority' == Responsibility, notwithstanding. Ditto on previous UN Resolutions defining what "breach of sanctions" might mean. IF THE UN won't agree and support this invasion Today? See above.
Ashton
|
Post #83,861
2/24/03 7:31:23 PM
|
See the Halliburton thread.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=83744|Here]
Oh my. It seems to be this very same thread.
Because Iraq did not comply to the the LETTER of the resolutions, we are allowed to kill Iraqi children.
Nay!
We MUST kill Iraqi children.
Now, Halliburton followed the LETTER of the law and managed to turn a profit helping evil Saddam but that is okay, because it they found a loophole in the law.
If Iraq is WRONG for NOT following the LETTER of the UN resolutions
-THEN-
The US is WRONG for NOT following the LETTER of the UN resolutions.
We are preparing to break the law and kill innocent children to "get" Saddam because he broke the law.
But Saddam's "breaking" of the law did NOT result in anyone in any other country being killed.
The USofA's "breaking" of the law will.
|
Post #83,871
2/24/03 8:12:26 PM
2/25/03 2:05:18 AM
|
Yup Ash - good call - could see where this thread was head
Feel sorry for Silverlock - it is hard to get a good grip on interaction where the other person distorts the points to the extent that occured here
Am wondering how long it will tak Silverlock to conclude that there is nothing one can learn other than coping with irritation & annoyance from interacting with BP on topics related to politics. The perceptions & thinking mips just aren't there for BP. Twisting & distorting what others say seems to be BPs standard tactic in difficult matters. That gets to be downright annoying after a short while.
Anyway, lets observe the next such match - perhaps we can create a score table. <grin>
Doug M
Edited by dmarker
Feb. 25, 2003, 02:05:18 AM EST
|
Post #83,951
2/25/03 2:32:25 AM
|
Sad.
Yes you.
Sad.
You see. I retracted here. We may still disagree...but it maintained at least a note of ci
Why?
Because Silver acted like an adult.
Something you and your new buddy can't seem to do.
You feel more inclined to play these games.
Can't enter this conversation. Because you know I am correct. As far as the main discussion, I am absolutely correct. Its ok. You don't have to admit it. I know it would be painful. You can invent motive, talk about spirit, dance around all you like...but the initial statement re: the legality was >false<.
So instead you feel content to play this little infantile game.
Just as well.
Cry me a river.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #84,929
2/28/03 4:05:31 PM
|
Good points. However, ...
isn't the implicit function of the resolutions you cite to prevent Iraq from continuing to be a threat to her neighbors? If not, why explicitly call for Iraq to disarm?
Yes, the sanctions were implemented to assist in the enforcement of resolutions calling for disarmament. But those resolutions were written to protect Iraq's neighbors. No, that isn't explicitly stated in the resolutions. But we can all read in context, can't we?
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #83,853
2/24/03 6:27:16 PM
|
Yep.
Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We pushed him back into Iraq.
Sanctions have ensured that he hasn't invaded anyone else during that time.
That sounds like "success" to me.
|
