Posted on 03/27/2003 12:55:46 PM PST by Bob J
As I said, once the war is over (30 days?) the first thing Bush will do is ask that the UN lift it's embargo.
And who pray tell enforces that embargo and why do we need UN permission?
Because it's the UN's embargo. They instituted it, they control it and only they can end it.
I don't see the need for it now.
You and many others, but the fact is it exists and most countries abide by it.
The US will be in charge, all previous contracts will be null and void, and France, Germany and Russia can go cry in their milk.
That is now harder to envision.
Maybe so, but I doubt Bush will allow "business as usual" once this is over. We will have a friendly government in place who will not forget who liberated them nor who helped prop up Saddam's regime.
The oil-for-food program can stay in suspension. As far as I know, there is no law or agreement that prohibits the United States from taking some other action because that cease fire has ENDED. Moreover, the cease-fire agreement isn't a treaty; the agreement was concluded with a government that will no longer exist.
By taking the oil and selling it it will only give our detractors ammunition for their "Blood for Oil" campaign.
Our detractors will wail anyway. If we let the UN run oil-for-food, then after the UN screws up the outcome, we will be blamed.
Also, it would be difficult after the war for the US to condemn France, Germany and Russia for their obvious violations in equiping Saddam prior to the war.
How does reimplementing oil-for-food help us expose the violation of the agreement by the European powers? We should do that no matter what happens. In fact, exposing these acts of treachery is ample justification for ending the UN's malfeasance in administering the program.
IMHO, the intelligent choice is to use this program to help defray some of the humanitarian costs while the war is in play.
There are other ways to do accomplish that goal that might actually work. Going back to the UN is a way to guarantee a black hole for the money. It is, after all, what happened last time.
I think Bush could get away with using American banks for the transaction and insisting it be conducted in dollars or pounds.
Just watch. How far will "insistance" carry us with the UN now that we have gone ahead with the war without Security Council approval? Further, what did we get for re-joining UNESCO besides a Resolution 1441 that the Franco-German interests ignored?
...it's the UN's embargo. They instituted it, they control it and only they can end it. [Snip] ...the fact is it exists and most countries abide by it.
Oh really? I thought you said, "France, Germany and Russia for their obvious violations in equiping Saddam prior to the war." We haven't even really begun with that investigation and I have little doubt we'll find China's dirty fingers in there too. I suggest that the increasing evidence of the sale of chemical weapons production equipment, chemical suits, secure communications networks, subterranean bunkers, biowarfare production equipment, night vision equipment, GPS jammers, spare parts for fighters... indicates that virtually NO ONE was abiding by the embargo AND that the UN was totally failing to enforce it. Those weapons are meant for enslaving the Iraqi people and killing Americans, and you think we should trust these people?
No thank you.
Why shouldn't the money come directly from oil revenues? We shouldn't be shouldering Iraq with more debt, seeing as they already owe nearly $100 billion. We should be negotiating debt forgiveness for them (by the Saudis among others). Seeing as Vivendi already owns US Filter, it apparently doesn't matter who installs water systems.
However, the country's oil wealth and the money that flows from that and how it is spent will be in the hands of a US friendly government.
Not under oil-for-food.
I predict a lion's share of any contracts with Iraq will flow to US and British companies, a middling portion to other countries that helped prosecute the war, and a token amount to the weasels (just for show).
How will that happen with the escrow account under UN control? With the UN making a 2.2% cut, why would they let it end? How would we end it if it is reinstituted and the UN controls it as you suggest?
To paraphrase the Bonzo Dog Band, 'Let's face it, that's credulous as hell.'
It will be THE end, dont see it happening stakes arent big enough China's EXPORTS to the USA must be 10 times that.
Nope. But it WILL be the end of every nation that stands against Israel, because each of those nations stands opposed to God and in support of Satan.
You seem to keep skipping over my contention that as soon as this war has ended, the UN sanctions will be lifted and the Food for Oil program will no longer be in play. The F4O program can be used to our benefit, while the war is conducted and as long as the US controls the oil fields. How long will that be? 30 days? 60? 90? While it is still in play no other country will openly violate the UN Sanctions as long as they are in place.
Not at all. I think you are too trusting to a fault.
I am not, I am a pragmatist.
There is nothing pragmatic about it. I think what you are saying is full of false hopes, all evidence to the contrary.
I would love to see it go away, however, that is not going to happen soon.
Oh but we would have provided a substantial nudge by keeping them out of oil-for-food II (the cease fire is over, remember?). Japan is just as fed up with the UN as we are. If both quit paying, the UN be gone for good. Together, the US and Japan provide over 40% of the operating budget and far more than that when peacekeeping is added in. The League of Nations is no longer with us.
If it goes it will take much more than this engagement, nor is GWB going to just stand up and declare the US is leaving. Wishing something to be so doesn't make it real.
Cutting off extra money goes a long way and is an important signal to others of our determination.
You seem to keep skipping over my contention that as soon as this war has ended, the UN sanctions will be lifted and the Food for Oil program will no longer be in play.
That's because history and common sense motivation don't support your contention. The UN, like any bureaucracy, has every reason to stay in control of the cash because it's power for sale to the highest bidder. It is still in Korea, East Timor, Haiti, Cyprus, nearly all of Central and South Africa... Name a place where they went gone in AND left.
The F4O program can be used to our benefit, while the war is conducted and as long as the US controls the oil fields.
The oil is useless unless it can be sold. The UN will control the cash after we have given up control of the asset. That is where you really miss the boat.
How long will that be? 30 days? 60? 90? While it is still in play no other country will openly violate the UN Sanctions as long as they are in place.
History does not support that assertion. Corruption in the UN is so rampant I cannot imagine that they don't have dirty deals in the works already (a point of mine, among several, that you haven't addressed). They won't let go and every media corporation selling advertising will back them up when it comes time to pull the plug. We were far better off taking the heat for telling them to stick it now than lying to ourselves with the false hope that the UN will EVER willingly give up money or power.
Who gives a rat's a$$ about what the communists in the media can trump up as "world opinion"? They're trying to drag us into their democratic socialist pit!!! Clinton ignored the UN when he went into Serbia for less reason than we have against Saddam Hussien. Besides, I don't suppose you remember the way Bill Walker of the CIA (a cousin of George WALKER Bush and a compadre of Ollie North in Nicaragua) staged the Racak Massacre in Kosovo?
Going to the UN gave time for the entire communist movement to organize the demonstrations. It gave time for Saddam to get his defenses ready. It caused us to be looking at our soldiers in chem-suits in an Iraqi summer. It gave time for Al-Qaueda to set up for its "response." I don't call any of that "pragmatic." Going to the UN mired us into UNESCO (after Reagan had got us out). And what did we get for that? 1441 was too high a price to pay for tying an unconstitutional US Department of Education to the UN.
It's called plausible deniability and with the exception of bombing the hell out of Iraq, Bush has not indicated any intention of violating UN resolutions, much less pulling out and watching the UN fold...leave that to the French and Germans.
I agree with that assessment actually; it's one of the things that concerns me about this President.
They have a much greater interest in building a Euro coalition headed by Paris, Berlin and Brussels to establish a beachhead to counter American hedgemony.
I dearly hope they will but I suspect that contingency to be a stepping stone to the larger agenda. Hopefully, Britain and Eastern Europe might recognize the Popular Front that sponsored Lenin for what it is. Having lived under it for sixty years, they might actually pass on that one. I suspect that is one reason they are in with us now. Consider how much balls that took in the face of potentially losing in the EU and then look at Bush's concern about "world opinon."
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't grander designs across the Atlantic to see a nuetered UN, but first, a couple upstarts will have to be put back in their box to make sure we aren't exchanging one tick for another.
I am not sure about which side of the Atlantic you mean because the push "putsch?" for Global Government (or World Federalism for that matter) has its fans on both sides of the Atlantic, including GHWB-41 and Colin Powell. Consider that the UN was an American invention (American communists anyway), along with the IMF, World Bank, the WTO... It was after all, Clinton who sponsored the UN "reorg" that created the Earth Charter, Rio, Agenda21, Sustainable Development, Our Global Neighborhood, the Seville Strategy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.