Interesting article on Iraq sanctions - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-04-2001, 04:01 PM   #1
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Thanks for the post radiodivision.. Though i did cringe at it's viewpoint.. being a proponent of getting rid of Saddam.. but I'm not all that knoweldgable on that topic.. so it was good to read a bit more...
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 12-04-2001, 04:11 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:45 AM
The sanctions have always bothered me, because it really solved nothing and only hurt the common people. Now, imagine, if the nations of the world decided one day to put these strict of sanctions on the U.S., because they suddenly desired the overthrow of President Bush. Then they tell us, the common people, that, in order to get your previous life together, you would have to overthrow the president yourself. Needless to say, what little money and resources are left are then spent to keep the military well-fed and armed, so it's doubtful that the military will turn against the President. And then, as common people, we are supposed to go up against tanks and a military arsenal larger than any weapon we could conjure up?

This, to me, is the dilemma of Iraq, which was once one of the wealthiest nations in the Islamic world before these sanctions. What should have happened was either the active removal of Saddam Hussein or the ending of sanctions. This middle of the road nonsense only hurts the citizens of Iraq, and Saddam still is more than capable of spreading tyranny. So, I say, either finish the job or pull out completely.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 12-04-2001).]
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-04-2001, 04:19 PM   #3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 54
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
Thanks for the post radiodivision.. Though i did cringe at it's viewpoint.. being a proponent of getting rid of Saddam.. but I'm not all that knoweldgable on that topic.. so it was good to read a bit more...
Your welcome Lemonite. I think agree or disagree, the article is thought provoking and at least gives you another point of view regarding the situation in Iraq.

__________________
radiodivision is offline  
Old 12-04-2001, 07:26 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Counterpoint from The New Republic:

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801.html
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 12-04-2001, 08:25 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 07:45 AM
I never thought I would see the day when I agree with THE NEW REPUBLIC and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut).
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 03:31 AM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 54
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Interesting article on Iraq sanctions

I found this interesting article by two people who have worked there. I thought I share it with those who may be interested.

-----

THE HOSTAGE NATION

Hans von Sponeck
and Denis Halliday

Guardian
Thursday November 29, 2001

A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that
Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of
containment
of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force,
Saddam Hussein and his government.

The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq
and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of
that daily in reports from reputable international organizations such
as
Caritas, Unicef, and Save the Children. A change to a policy of
replacement by force will increase that suffering.

The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy
voters by expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is
not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as
former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is
the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood
by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally
frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left
in the hands of the Arabs".

How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away
with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something
they
did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope
that
those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only
applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the
powerful?

The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware
that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human
rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws.
It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and
London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to
write
the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.

The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment
since
the Gulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently
opposed allowing the UN security council to carry out its mandated
responsibilities to assess the impact of sanctions policies on
civilians. We know about this first hand, because the governments
repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing the security council about
it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 per person, for
humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years of the
oil-for-food programme are unarguable evidence of such a policy.

We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the US
ambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his
colleagues
a year ago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the
oil-for-food programme is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people."
Besides the provision of food and medicine, the real issue today is
that
Iraqi oil revenues must be invested in the reconstruction of civilian
infrastructure destroyed in the Gulf war.

Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet the
minimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar
that
Iraqi oil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security
council, at the behest of the UK and US governments, to compensate
outsiders for losses allegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait. If this money had been made available to Iraqis, it could have
saved many lives.

The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people
hostage, in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to
ever-shifting
demands. The UN secretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has
repeatedly been prevented from taking this role by the US and the UK
governments.

The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructive ambiguity" as
the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as a useful tool
when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismiss
criticism
by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad. If
this is true, why do we punish them further?

The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001,
says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian
supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the
oil-for-food programme. The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi
government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully
satisfactory
(as it was when we headed this programme). The death of some 5-6,000
children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines
and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of
equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in
the
UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic
sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will
not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially
like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the
bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments
and
no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.

The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi
people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the
current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That
this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as
unavoidable.

What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to
us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people
continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and
power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time
has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."

We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulous
policies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by
those who know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with
false and malicious arguments.

The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN
arms inspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind
the anthrax scare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin
within the US.

British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is
qualitatively disarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing
secretary of defense, William Powell, told incoming President George
Bush in January: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its
neighbours". The same message has come from former UN arms inspectors.
But to admit this would be to nail the entire UN policy, as it has been
developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.

We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. The
implications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are too serious
for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of
leaders
in the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not
ignored by the US government. What is now most urgently needed is an
attack on injustice, not on the Iraqi people.

Hans von Sponeck was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to
2000; Denis Halliday held the same post from 1997 to 1998.

djhalliday@msn.com

von_sponeck@yahoo.com

--------


__________________
radiodivision is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 10:47 AM   #7
The Fly
 
Bathtime Fun Whortense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: london, ontario, canada®
Posts: 203
Local Time: 09:45 AM
the article only strenghtened my point: the sanctions do little to hurt saddam and are meaningless. like i said, this either finish your job or pull away. none of this centrist crap. look at afghanistan. there was a war, sadly, but now the people of afghanistan are liberated from the taliban. who are really the only people keeping this war going right now? the foreign al-qaeda who have nowhere to go.

neither sanctions nor telling the people of iraq to overthrow their leader is going to work. saddam is, of course, milking for sympathy, not so unlike mullah omar exaggerating civilian casualties by the u.s. bombing. the reality, however, is that the sheer fact that saddam is there, he poses a threat. drugs are illegal too, but it sure hasn't stopped the trade, now has it?

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington
__________________
Bathtime Fun Whortense is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 11:50 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bathtime Fun Whortense:
the article only strenghtened my point: the sanctions do little to hurt saddam and are meaningless. like i said, this either finish your job or pull away. none of this centrist crap. look at afghanistan. there was a war, sadly, but now the people of afghanistan are liberated from the taliban. who are really the only people keeping this war going right now? the foreign al-qaeda who have nowhere to go.
You're right, which is why I say we get rid of Saddam once and for all.

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 12-05-2001, 02:01 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 02:45 PM
It needs courage pull of, it will never happen. Some country`s are affraid for los of face.


BTW, i do not no if loss of face is a good English expresion.


Translate it for me, gezichtsverlies.


Read you, Rono.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 12-06-2001, 04:29 PM   #10
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Austin, TX USA
Posts: 54
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Here's more material explaining the discrepancy between the effects of the sanctions on the North vs. the rest of Iraq as well as the media coverage of the sanctions.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

__________________
radiodivision is offline  
Old 12-12-2001, 10:29 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:45 PM
I do agree that the job should be finished, someone should get in there and get rid of Sadam, the UK should have continued hammering into Iraq and gone into Baghdad, they should've sent the SAS in or something.

However, I do think that sanctions on Iraq are the next best thing. If people are suffering then they should do the logical; get rid of the man himself. I have never believed in this notion that 'oh no, the people themselves aren't capable of doing that...' which is nonsense, if the people want it badly enough, they would achieve.

Unfortunately, they are evidently only too happy to keep their dictator; and I have no compassion for the people of a country who choose to keep a dictator in power. Whether it was Chile and Pinochet, Argentina and Peron (or, come to think of it, any South American country, they have always been taken over by some dictatorship or other) or even Spain, who, thanks to a fascist majority and the OH SO wonderful Catholic Church kept the dictatot alive and well till his natural death in 1975.

My Spanish grandfather, who fought, lost and renounced his country on principle (and then moved to Britain, away from Franco's Spain) always told me that a country always deserves the leader it gets. This is EXACTLY the case in Iraq, if the world is cruel to them, if the mean old US and UK are depriving the innocents of food and other basic human rights, then the people of Iraq should evidently do something about it.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 12-12-2001, 10:37 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Ant:

You've made some good points here.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com