Thursday, November 24, 2005

Myths about the Sanctions on Iraq:

Quite a few myths have developed about the sanction, which caused so much suffering in Iraq during the period between the wars. One can quibble over the exact numbers of deaths, but the horrific scale of the suffering of the Iraqi people is undeniable. Consequently, the focus is usually shifted to pointing the finger of blame.

Two of the most prevalent claims of those who wish to palliate the US responsibility for the humanitarian cataclysm are
1. that the sanctions were imposed by the UN, and therefore the United States isn’t really to blame, and
2. that if Saddam Hussein's government had cooperated with the weapons inspectors the sanctions would have been lifted.

Neither of these claims is entirely accurate.

The claim that the sanctions were put in place by the full Security Council (and not by the US alone) is true, but it misses the point. Removing them would have required a vote of the full Security Council, which was subject to a US veto. If the other 14 members of the council had voted for lifting them, the US, or any of the other permanent members (the UK, France, Russia, or China) could have vetoed it, and the measure would have died, leaving the sanctions in place.

Although Britain remained a stalwart supporter of the US policy, on occasion the other permanent members attempted to lift them. But since they were unable to force the issue under UN rules, the mere threat of a veto was sufficient to keep the sanctions in place.

Furthermore, the claim that they were UN sanctions and not just Anglo-American ones, even if it were true (which it isn’t) would still not absolve the US and Britain of responsibility for the humanitarian cataclysm which resulted. When someone takes an action, which is morally indefensible, it really isn’t made any less bad because he had other confederates, or co-conspirators.

As for the other claim, that the sanctions were kept in place to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the requirements of the weapons inspectors, again this is technically true, but it doesn’t tell the full story. The US may have wanted the sanctions to remain, as it was considered necessary for this reason, but the US also made it clear that compliance on this issue would not be sufficient for the lifting of the sanctions.

Spokesmen for successive administrations made it plain, that the US would continue the sanctions regardless of Iraq’s compliance, until the government of Saddam Hussein was no longer in power.

"Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be – may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."
- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991 - Press Conference


"Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Los Angeles Times (Thursday, 9 May 1991), p.10; column 1


"We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."
- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997 - Speech at Georgetown University


"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change, support for the opposition, and reviewing additional options that might be available of a unilateral or multilateral nature."
-Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 12 February 2002. Interview with The Financial Times

This policy of using the sanctions to effect regime change, is of course, in direct contravention to UN Security Council Resolution 687 (the resolution which put in place the cease fire after the 1991 Gulf War, and required the removal of Iraqi wmd).

In article 22 of that resolution the security council:
22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;


Paragraphs 8 through 13 simply enumerated the specific types of weapons, which Iraq was required to destroy.

Obviously, if the Security Council is the body which judges whether the government of Iraq has “completed all actions contemplated” in regards to wmd, and one of the members (with veto power) publicly announces that the actions taken by the government of Iraq will never be sufficient, it makes a mockery of the whole process.

If anyone ever asks the obvious question, (which is never articulated in the US media) of “Why were the Iraqi people being starved over weapons which we now know they didn’t possess?”, this provides a clue as to the answer.

...

Comments:
Sheesh man. This all the same claptrap you plagiarized from another discussion board.

You're a fake.
 
Ha Ha. I saw that too. This clown cuts and pastes from other discussion boards and posts crap as his own.
 
Oh my, greggie. It sounds like you've been outed as a fraud.
 
Dear anonymous or anonymouses (anonymi),

In future it might be better if you (all) posted using some sort of method of enumeration (for instance calling yourselves anonymous 1, anonymous 2, or some such), or perhaps even use noms de plume of some sort.

It might make this "dialogue" sound a little more coherent – not much considering the criticisms, but a little.

As for the various claims that I am a plagiarist, fraud, or a fake – they don’t really make any sense, regarding this particular composition.

As anyone who had bothered to read this entry would have noticed, it is simply a collection of quotations (with suitable citations) from members of successive US administrations. It was then pointed out that those statements were at direct variance to the terms (for lifting the sanctions), to which the United States had agreed.

It might be beneficial to actually reflect upon the meaning of certain blog entries – rather than making ad-hominem attacks that don’t really make any sense.

regards
 
Too bad, greggie. You've been exposed as a nitwit cut and paster
 
"As for the various claims that I am a plagiarist, fraud, or a fake –they don’t really make any sense, regarding this particular composition."

It's not just a various claim, greggie, it's fact.

You copy and paste from various sites claiming the material is your own.

FRAUD
 
Copy-pasting quotes from the President of the U.S. is "plagiarizing"? LOL

It's amazing how many anonymous people are mentally retarded. Is there a way to help these poor souls? Should we take up a collection? How do they feed themselves?
 
Does anyone else get the impression that greggie is posting as an anonymous reader to cover his own fraudulent copy and paste stealing?
 
naaz_aneen said...
amazing how citing sources to quotes makes one a plagiarist and a fraud. here's a useful source for the idiotic and confused....a dictionary....

merriam-webster.com

cheers
 
Here's a real blog if anyone wants to read it.


http://americanimperialist.blogspot.com/
 
I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. My blog is just about my day to day life, as a park ranger. So please Click Here To Read My Blog
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?