Russians oppose lifting sanctions on Iraq

[FATPad]

Interesting.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030417121631

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia will not support a US proposal to lift UN sanctions on Iraq (news - web sites) if UN inspectors do not confirm the country has no weapons of mass destruction, a Russian foreign ministry official said.


"Regime change in Baghdad is not a condition for lifting economic sanctions on Iraq," the official told the Interfax news agency on condition of anonymity.


"There is a UN Security Council resolution for this, which clearly stipulates the disarmament of Iraq -- something international inspectors must decide," he said, adding that Russia supported the return of UN inspectors.


US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday he would soon propose a UN resolution ending the 12-year-old crippling economic sanctions, which put an embargo on the trade of Iraqi oil.


Russia -- a fierce opponent to the US-led war that earlier cast doubt on US accusations that Iraq possessed biological, chemical or nuclear weapons -- fears opening the floodgates of Iraqi oil could hurt its own economy, which is heavily reliant on oil exports.


It has called for the United Nations (news - web sites) to play a central role in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq, also fearing lucrative contracts could end up in the hands of the US-led coalition that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


Dmitry Rogozin, head of parliament's foreign affairs committee, said the US announcement that it favored lifting sanctions less than one week after the fall of Baghdad and Saddam's regime seemed "wrong" and "mercenary."


"We should determine just what the United State is after -- something seem wrong, the approach is too mercenary," he was quoted by Interfax as saying.


"Today the United Nations controls practically nothing in Iraq, so the sanctions will actually be lifted not from Russian companies -- which should be working in the region -- but from Americans, who will be given the juciest parts of the Iraqi oil industry," he said.


The United Nations imposed sweeping sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. They included a ban on all trade with Iraq, an embargo on its oil exports and an arms embargo.


Bush also called for an end to the UN-administered "oil-for-food" program, which since 1996 has enabled Iraq to export limited amounts of oil and use the revenues to buy basic humanitarian supplies.

[directfiesta]

Amazing how fast Bush wants to get his hands on the oil... It is always the main subject of his speaches.

The US wants to triple the output of Iraq, giving itself on one hand a new source of cheap oil, and fucking up the ass the members of OPEC.

A double Whammy

[Fletch XXX]

mmmm oil

bring it home boys.

[FATPad]

HAHA

Last month sanctions were killing millions of iraqi kids and doing nothing useful. Not to mention there was no "proof" that Iraq had weapons.

Now, the same people who were saying that want to keep the sanctions in place and need to disarm Iraq. HAHA

You guys kill me.

Where's wonton telling me that the story is a govt sponsored lie?

[cali_22]

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by FATPad
HAHA

Last month sanctions were killing millions of iraqi kids and doing nothing useful. Not to mention there was no "proof" that Iraq had weapons.

Now, the same people who were saying that want to keep the sanctions in place and need to disarm Iraq. HAHA

You guys kill me.

Where's wonton telling me that the story is a govt sponsored lie?

"Regime change in Baghdad is not a condition for lifting economic sanctions on Iraq," the official told the Interfax news agency on condition of anonymity.


"There is a UN Security Council resolution for this, which clearly stipulates the disarmament of Iraq -- something international inspectors must decide," he said, adding that Russia supported the return of UN inspectors.

The only thing said here is that :

- a regime change was and is not a clause to end the sanctions ( Regime change was a US agenda).

- the UN resolution can be "cancelled" only once the UN is satisfied that Iraq meets the disarment clause. Obviouly it did and does.


I understand the urgency for the US to get their hands on the Oil, but they could show restraint ... would look better.

[Thrawn$]

There is no water in hospital and they already begin to hire iraki people to work in the oil compagnies taken by bush and the gang..

[cluck]

OK OK this left/right shit is getting pretty annoying. I'm gonna put in my Let's use my new CommonSense? political stance decision protocol. Hopefully in the future, peoples brains will have enough computing power to think in variables other than binary(left/right).

Q: Is Bush just trying to get some oil by lifting sanctions?
A: Yes. He's a scumbag.

Q: Did the sanctions cause lots of death and a shit quality of life for iraqi's while barely hurting the regime?
A: Yes, sanctions were obviously not the right choice.

Q: Did the USA liberate Iraq for the right reasons?
A: Probably not.

Q: What about Russia, didn't they arm Saddam?
A: Yeah, I think they did. Funny they'd want to lift sanctions.

Q: But was the freeing of the Iraqi people undeniably worth it, whether you agree with the US government or not?
A: Yeah, I'm sure an Iraqi wouldn't agree with the gov't, but they sure are happy to be free(er).

So my decision making protocol has honestly identified motives and outcomes and compared the current situation to precedents set by past actions of the administration.

So basically we've decided that lifting sanctions will ultimately be good for the people of Iraq. That is what really matters. Russia brings up the fact that until a stable government is set up in Iraq, security should be tight, but we can pretty much tell that that's truly not their motives.

So, I support Russia in their suggestion to keep sanctions intact for now, but I support Bush in his plan to lift sanctions.

Wow, I feel so proud. I made a decision and admitted the faults of both parties rather than being totally loyal! I guess you really DON'T have to support a party's ideals or motives in deciding to support a single decision. Who would have thought?

[directfiesta]

Cluck, nice going.. at least you stop to think about it....

from Reuters;

"We certainly know the value of oil but we certainly don't know the value of historical artifacts," Vikan, director of the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, told Reuters on Thursday.

US Culture Advisers Resign Over Iraq Museum Looting
Thu April 17, 2003 04:48 PM ET

Two cultural advisers to the Bush administration have resigned in protest over the failure of U.S. forces to prevent the wholesale looting of priceless treasures from Baghdad's antiquities museum. Martin Sullivan, who chaired the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property for eight years, and panel member Gary Vikan said they resigned because the U.S. military had had advance warning of the danger to Iraq's historical treasures.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2586936


One word always come back , always : OIL.

[NetRodent]

Originally posted by cluck
Q: Is Bush just trying to get some oil by lifting sanctions?
A: Yes. He's a scumbag.

Or he's trying to get some money into the Iraqi economy. The US is now responsible for a broken fucked up country. Oil may be part of it but getting Iraq functional again is probably a major part of it.

[NetRodent]

Originally posted by directfiesta
One word always come back , always : OIL.

Could it be that the oil fields were quickly secure to keep them from being torched like Iraq did to the Kuwaiti oil fields?

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by NetRodent


Could it be that the oil fields were quickly secure to keep them from being torched like Iraq did to the Kuwaiti oil fields?

???

[cluck]

Originally posted by NetRodent


Or he's trying to get some money into the Iraqi economy. The US is now responsible for a broken fucked up country. Oil may be part of it but getting Iraq functional again is probably a major part of it.

Yes, but this seems to contradict his prior views. This is supposed to be a "war on terror". If there ever was a time for it, it's now. We could support Iraq temporarily while we make sure there are no more chemical and biological weapons lying around. If we open up trade right now that would make it much easier for any remaining extremists to ship bad stuff to terrorist cells in the USA. Now, it seems he's not willing to sacrifice some cheap oil and prosperity for Iraq for the sake of preventing terror attacks.

What was this war for again?

[cluck]

Originally posted by NetRodent


Could it be that the oil fields were quickly secure to keep them from being torched like Iraq did to the Kuwaiti oil fields?

It's possible, but does it matter? They did prevent the oil fields from being torched and that's the important thing. We need to think about what's the best decision for the USA and the Iraqi people right now rather than point fingers. There's too much at risk right now to play favorites.

[nap]

Originally posted by NetRodent


Or he's trying to get some money into the Iraqi economy. The US is now responsible for a broken fucked up country. Oil may be part of it but getting Iraq functional again is probably a major part of it.

yea getting the country that we just blew the fuck out of is important to bush just like the louisana purchase was a great deal for the mexicans

[NetRodent]

Originally posted by cluck


Yes, but this seems to contradict his prior views. This is supposed to be a "war on terror". If there ever was a time for it, it's now. We could support Iraq temporarily while we make sure there are no more chemical and biological weapons lying around. If we open up trade right now that would make it much easier for any remaining extremists to ship bad stuff to terrorist cells in the USA. Now, it seems he's not willing to sacrifice some cheap oil and prosperity for Iraq for the sake of preventing terror attacks.

What was this war for again?

Which do you think would insite more terrorist attacks? A prosperous Iraq that is reintegrated into the world community or a broken beaten occupied Iraq under sanctions?

[Rochard]

Fucking dolts.

Both sides here have their plans, wants, needs, and desires.

France, Germany, and Russia wanted to remove all sanctions beofre the war because it was in their interests. They are the ones concerned about their fucking oil and contracts in place.

The US wanted sanctions in place for a number of reasons, including keeping Iraq on it's knees.......

It's been said that during WWII the entire conflict was about oil, and the fact that Japan wanted it. After Japan was defeated, a stable government was set up and Japan seems to be doing just fine.

The same will happen to Iraq.

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by nap



like the louisana purchase was a great deal for the mexicans

Not sure, but I think:

- Louisiana :

"On Apr. 29, the U.S. envoys agreed to pay a total of $15 million to France; about $3,750,000 of this sum covered claims of U.S. citizens against France, which the U.S. government agreed to discharge. The treaty, dated Apr. 30, 1803, was signed several days later. "

- Florida:

"U.S. Occupation
In 1819, after years of diplomatic wrangling, Spain reluctantly signed the Adams-Onis treaty ceding Florida to the United States in return for U.S. assumption of $5 million in damages claimed by U.S. citizens against Spain. "


- Alaska :

was sold by the Russians (In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7,200,000)

Soon, we will find a link for Iraq sold to the US in compensation of damages claimed by the US citizens....

[cluck]

Originally posted by RocHard
Fucking dolts.

Both sides here have their plans, wants, needs, and desires.

France, Germany, and Russia wanted to remove all sanctions beofre the war because it was in their interests. They are the ones concerned about their fucking oil and contracts in place.

The US wanted sanctions in place for a number of reasons, including keeping Iraq on it's knees.......

It's been said that during WWII the entire conflict was about oil, and the fact that Japan wanted it. After Japan was defeated, a stable government was set up and Japan seems to be doing just fine.

The same will happen to Iraq.

I agree, the Iraqi's probably feel pretty good about their future right now. They have no reason to attack. Thing is that other muslim extremists may have seen Saddam's defeat a defeat for Islam or whatever. Even if Iraq becomes rich and Americanized, the extremist groups will feel like we corrupted a whole country. It's pretty much unavoidable. Remember the power of stupid people in large groups who have a very clear agenda. They eventually stop questioning(anyone remember the Nazis?)

[Thrawn$]

Originally posted by cluck

(anyone remember the Nazis?)

I do

I remember them every times i see bush on TV! he always put his right arm like Nazis

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by NetRodent


Or he's trying to get some money into the Iraqi economy. The US is now responsible for a broken fucked up country. Oil may be part of it but getting Iraq functional again is probably a major part of it.

Exactly. And the longer the axis of weasels can keep the sanctions on Iraq the worse the situation is going to be.

How is Bush going to steal the oil from Iraq? Can anyone answer that? Also, why didn't Bush 41 steal the oil in 91?

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by RocHard
Fucking dolts.

Both sides here have their plans, wants, needs, and desires.

France, Germany, and Russia wanted to remove all sanctions beofre the war because it was in their interests. They are the ones concerned about their fucking oil and contracts in place.

The US wanted sanctions in place for a number of reasons, including keeping Iraq on it's knees.......

It's been said that during WWII the entire conflict was about oil, and the fact that Japan wanted it. After Japan was defeated, a stable government was set up and Japan seems to be doing just fine.

The same will happen to Iraq.

LIES LIES..... ALL LIES

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by RocHard


France, Germany, and Russia wanted to remove all sanctions beofre the war because it was in their interests. They are the ones concerned about their fucking oil and contracts in place.

Conditions for lifting the sanctions were outlined in the Security Council resolution 687 of April 1991.

The actual lifting of the sanctions will be a decision for the Security Council, whose 15 members must first agree either on how to interpret the resolution's criteria -- or on how to rewrite them.

Among the criteria are:

-- Iraq must destroy any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons as well as any ballistic missiles with a range greater than 94 miles.

-- Iraq must return any property stolen from Kuwait.

-- Iraq must account for any missing prisoners of war from Kuwait or elsewhere.

-- Iraq must pay for its damage to the environment as a result of its invasion of Kuwait.

-- Iraq must respect its international boundary with Kuwait, as demarcated by the United Nations.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...ryID=25859 26

Your thing about agenda is just some stuff that after being repeated tons and tons of time on TV and by the Gov you have started to beleive and now preach.
Post an article that says what you say.

Originally posted by RocHard

The US wanted sanctions in place for a number of reasons, including keeping Iraq on it's knees.......

The US should have wanted sanctions for the same reasons as above, Obviously, the US had another agenda of "Regime change" (not in the UN sanctions) under the pretense of WMD and unproven links to 9/11.


It seems so easy to rewrite the facts and history to get people to beleive that your illegitimate war was " a freedom operation"

Go free Congo, Somalia ( 2nd try) and so on... But warning, no oil to be found.

[AWC]

Who gives a shit what the russians think? They didn't honor the sanctions anyhow.

[foe]

Originally posted by directfiesta


- Alaska :

was sold by the Russians (In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7,200,000)

Soon, we will find a link for Iraq sold to the US in compensation of damages claimed by the US citizens....

Alaska was leased, and then after the russian revolution we just took it.

[ChrisH]

directfiesta,
The US adopted a policy of regeim change in Iraq under Bill Clinton in 1998. So saying the policy was regeim change is nothing new at all. It's been US Policy since 98.

That said the UN Resolutions are meaningless now. They were supposed to be against Saddam, not the Iraqi people. The UN created the oil for food program to supplement the Iraqi people.

But that was obviously changed to an Oil for Palace Program by Saddam Hussein.

[Serge_Oprano]

Originally posted by foe


Alaska was leased, and then after the russian revolution we just took it.

not really..
I thought that too and LOST the bet,
I was shown the SALE agreement signed by Russian Tsar.

[playa]

for christ sake the only income the country made is from oil, they don't have a huge GDP,, if they had a huge auto assembly plant to generate income then that would of been protected too.

now wouldn't it make sence to secure the only source of income a country could make? if the military never secured the oil fields it would of been on fire. It took Kuwait over 6 months to put out all their fires,

in the mean time all the monies from the war and building up the new government will come from the US taxpayers, so i say they need to do whatever the hell they need to do to get the country up and running

[playa]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano


not really..
I thought that too and LOST the bet,
I was shown the SALE agreement signed by Russian Tsar.

it's true we bought it from the russians,

got a lot of critism,, was known as bad mistake until they found oil

[The Truth Hurts]

interesting that people oppesed to the war proir to it who were disregarding the wording of UN resolutions, are now the same people quoting UN resolutions as gospel.

oh, the irony.

[Serge_Oprano]

Originally posted by playa


it's true we bought it from the russians,

got a lot of critism,, was known as bad mistake until they found oil

WRONG!

in 1897 they found GOLD in Klondike and in 1898 the gold rush began.

The Gold alone found in Alaska paid for 100's of purchases like that!
;-)))

[Serge_Oprano]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts
interesting that people oppesed to the war proir to it who were disregarding the wording of UN resolutions, are now the same people quoting UN resolutions as gospel.

oh, the irony.

and I say:
Fuck 'em all,
fuck UN,
we don't need them,
let's not let UN rob us of our victory!

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by foe


Alaska was leased, and then after the russian revolution we just took it.

Lovely. As I stated above, it is so easy for you to rewrite history to suit your needs or ego.

Please stand corrected ( try to read it all if capable):

Alaska[l´sk] Pronunciation Key - History-


Russian Colonization
The disastrous voyage of Vitus Bering and Aleksey Chirikov in 1741 began the march of Russian traders across Siberia. The survivors who returned with sea otter skins started a rush of fur hunters to the Aleutian Islands. Grigori Shelekhov in 1784 founded the first permanent settlement in Alaska on Kodiak Island and sent (1790) to Alaska the man who was to dominate the period of Russian influence there, Aleksandr Baranov. A monopoly was granted to the Russian American Company in 1799, and it was Baranov who directed its Alaskan activities. Baranov extended the Russian trade far down the west coast of North America and even, after several unsuccessful attempts, founded (1812) a settlement in N California.

Rivalry for the northwest coast was strong, and British and American trading vessels began to threaten the Russian monopoly. In 1821 the czar issued a ukase (imperial command) claiming the 51st parallel as the southern boundary of Alaska and warning foreign vessels not to trespass beyond it. British and American protests, the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine, and Russian embroilment elsewhere resulted (1824) in a negotiated settlement of the boundary at lat. 54°40´N (the present southern boundary of Alaska). Russian interests in Alaska gradually declined, and after the Crimean War, Russia sought to dispose of the territory altogether.

Early Years as a U.S. Possession
In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7,200,000. The U.S. purchase was accomplished solely through the determined efforts of Secretary of State William H. Seward, and for many years afterward the land was derisively called Seward's Folly or Seward's Icebox because of its supposed uselessness. Since Alaska appeared to offer no immediate financial return, it was neglected. The U.S. army officially controlled the area until 1876, when scandals caused the withdrawal of the troops. After a brief period, during which government was in the hands of customs officials, the U.S. navy was given charge (1879). Most of the territory was not even known, although the British (notably John Franklin and Capt. F. W. Beechey) had explored the coast of the Arctic Ocean, and the Hudson's Bay Company had explored the Yukon.

It was not until after the discovery of gold in the Juneau region in 1880 that Alaska was given a governor and a feeble local administration (under the Organic Act of 1884). Missionaries, who had come to the region in the late 1870s, exercised considerable influence. Most influential was Sheldon Jackson, best known for his introduction of reindeer to help the Alaska Eskimo (Inuit), impoverished by the wanton destruction of the fur seals. Sealing was the subject of a long international controversy (see Bering Sea Fur-Seal Controversy under Bering Sea), which was not ended until after gold had permanently transformed Alaska.


Now, contrary to your empty statment backed by the air expelled by your ass, here is the link:

http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/...ossession.html

[foreverjason]

lol so? winner goes the spoils, fuck you all!

[foreverjason]

ya so? winner goes the spoils!

[foreverjason]

fucking double post!

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by foreverjason
fucking double post!

Alcohol????