New Sanctions Imposed
-
Huh? What? Where did I say any of that? What Fu**in fantasy land are you in now? I asserted? Oh Maybe I asserted? OOh another maybe. Cripes If I keep this up I wont know what the f**k I'm talking about. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
pseudonym67 wrote: What Fu**in fantasy land are you in now? Another intelligent conversation..... I'm just trying to figure out what your point was in saying that the US had the highest number of Security Council vetos. What was your point? Its to bad that you have to resort to being obnoxious instead of having a meaningful conversation. pseudonym67 wrote: Cripes If I keep this up I wont know what the f**k I'm talking about. Not a suprise :~ Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
All right I have to bring it up....... In light of the 21 Billion dollars [^]that Saddam got out of the last UN sanctions aimed at Iraq, how effective does anyone think this is going to be? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/15/ivory.arms/index.html[^]. Of course not as many people stand to make as much money with the Ivory Coast cocoa eh?:~ Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
From the first article: But the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said ``for the most part the U.N. sanctions achieved their intended objective of preventing Saddam from rearming and developing weapons of mass destruction.'' Do you really think that anybody thought that Saddam would not get any oil out? Of course, in situations like this there is money to be made, and some will inevitably use the oportunity. Like prohibition in America. God, I'm sick of the perfect high morale of some Americans X| A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree. Spike Milligan
-
From the first article: But the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said ``for the most part the U.N. sanctions achieved their intended objective of preventing Saddam from rearming and developing weapons of mass destruction.'' Do you really think that anybody thought that Saddam would not get any oil out? Of course, in situations like this there is money to be made, and some will inevitably use the oportunity. Like prohibition in America. God, I'm sick of the perfect high morale of some Americans X| A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree. Spike Milligan
Maybe you should read the Duefler report. It documented what Saddam's plans seemed to be. Just a bit of it: "• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring. • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. • By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities." If you read the above it does say that Saddam still aspired to recreate his WMD capabilities, and intended to do so after sanctions where lifted. It also mentions that he had subverted the Oil for Food program to get money to develop weapons again. It also mentions that the program had nearly ended by 1999. Probably having a lot to do with the fact he was bribing diplomats, huh? By the way my morale is pretty decent, but I would say that my morals are probably no better or worse than yours. ;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
pseudonym67 wrote: What Fu**in fantasy land are you in now? Another intelligent conversation..... I'm just trying to figure out what your point was in saying that the US had the highest number of Security Council vetos. What was your point? Its to bad that you have to resort to being obnoxious instead of having a meaningful conversation. pseudonym67 wrote: Cripes If I keep this up I wont know what the f**k I'm talking about. Not a suprise :~ Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
No you were not trying to have an intelligent conversation at all. You were employing the usual tactic of interpretting my statement in the way that best suited your agenda because you had no clear answer to it and because you didn't have a clear answer you tried to put words in my mouth. You argued that one of the main problems with the veto arrangement was the selfish interests of individual countries with the obvious intention of misleading people into thinking it was a mostly European thing. I was simply pointing out that the veto has been used more by the USA since 1966 than by all the European countries combined. I am perfectly capbable of reading thank you and I have read your little chat with Mike Gaskey at the start of this thread were you make it obvious that the sole point of the thread is to have a dig at the Europeans. If you want a conversation with someone dumb enough to fall for that stuff looks like you and Mike will just have to open exclusive threads and talk amongst yourselves. If I wish to state my opinion of the European Union in any reply I state it in my own words thank you. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
Except that the majority of UN members don't ever hold their own elections and a lot of them ignore the rule of law in their own country. So why would you expect them to play any different in the UN than the do at home? "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
DRHuff wrote: So why would you expect them to play any different in the UN than the do at home? I don't. But if people expect it to act as a sort of parent to global sibling nations, then those things would have to be in place, I think. We're not there yet. It's too ambitious and fails. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
No you were not trying to have an intelligent conversation at all. You were employing the usual tactic of interpretting my statement in the way that best suited your agenda because you had no clear answer to it and because you didn't have a clear answer you tried to put words in my mouth. You argued that one of the main problems with the veto arrangement was the selfish interests of individual countries with the obvious intention of misleading people into thinking it was a mostly European thing. I was simply pointing out that the veto has been used more by the USA since 1966 than by all the European countries combined. I am perfectly capbable of reading thank you and I have read your little chat with Mike Gaskey at the start of this thread were you make it obvious that the sole point of the thread is to have a dig at the Europeans. If you want a conversation with someone dumb enough to fall for that stuff looks like you and Mike will just have to open exclusive threads and talk amongst yourselves. If I wish to state my opinion of the European Union in any reply I state it in my own words thank you. pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
pseudonym67 wrote: I am perfectly capbable of reading thank you and I have read your little chat with Mike Gaskey at the start of this thread were you make it obvious that the sole point of the thread is to have a dig at the Europeans. pseudonym67 wrote: You were employing the usual tactic of interpretting my statement in the way that best suited your agenda because you had no clear answer to it and because you didn't have a clear answer you tried to put words in my mouth. Who is putting words in whose mouth? My point in the original post was that the UN sanctions that were voted on for the Ivory Coast were going to be a joke if they were like the sanctions against Iraq. The point being that in the last few weeks info has turned up that Saddam had turned the sactions program and managed to make off with something like $21 billion. My heartburn with that is that no one bothers to read the Deufler report that says that Saddam was working to get the sanctions lifted so he could rebuild his WMD program. I know this is sounding real round about but hang with me here, OK? Saddam uses the Oil for Food program that was in place to help his people out because of the sanctions in place so they could get medicines and food. Instead, the money goes to Saddam and his cronies. The point here is that UN sanctions and programs are typically a joke. Europe (and most of the world) will critise and complain that about the US and how it acts yet will work to help a dictator subvert sanctions so that they can be enriched. Thats what pisses me off. I have no problems with having the same rules apply for Haliburton, the UN, or the US government, I just despise the hypocracy. So if I sound like I'm coming down on the Europeans, its because I am, the French and their willingness to insert themselves into the Ivory Coast conflict, while at the same time criticising us in Iraq amazes me. Thats part of why something like the UN isn't going to really work for the forseeable future. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Maybe you should read the Duefler report. It documented what Saddam's plans seemed to be. Just a bit of it: "• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring. • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. • By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities." If you read the above it does say that Saddam still aspired to recreate his WMD capabilities, and intended to do so after sanctions where lifted. It also mentions that he had subverted the Oil for Food program to get money to develop weapons again. It also mentions that the program had nearly ended by 1999. Probably having a lot to do with the fact he was bribing diplomats, huh? By the way my morale is pretty decent, but I would say that my morals are probably no better or worse than yours. ;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
There has been fraud going on, this should be investigated, by all means. But according to UN, some $46 billion was spent on OFF, paid by Iraq. So some of the money must have gone to humanitarian purposes. If there had just been the embargo, don't you think that Saddam would have been able to sell large quatities oil oil at $15 a barrel, if the spot market price was $30 per barrel? That is what I mean, the whole situation is an invitation to profiteering. Doug Goulden wrote: By the way my morale is pretty decent, but I would say that my morals are probably no better or worse than yours. If you read the rest of the thread, there is a serious "down with Europeans" and "out of UN" sentiment. Which must be based on some sence of high moral, or something similar. Regards, Haakon S. A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree. Spike Milligan
-
There has been fraud going on, this should be investigated, by all means. But according to UN, some $46 billion was spent on OFF, paid by Iraq. So some of the money must have gone to humanitarian purposes. If there had just been the embargo, don't you think that Saddam would have been able to sell large quatities oil oil at $15 a barrel, if the spot market price was $30 per barrel? That is what I mean, the whole situation is an invitation to profiteering. Doug Goulden wrote: By the way my morale is pretty decent, but I would say that my morals are probably no better or worse than yours. If you read the rest of the thread, there is a serious "down with Europeans" and "out of UN" sentiment. Which must be based on some sence of high moral, or something similar. Regards, Haakon S. A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree. Spike Milligan
Haakon S. wrote: There has been fraud going on, this should be investigated, by all means. But according to UN, some $46 billion was spent on OFF, paid by Iraq. So some of the money must have gone to humanitarian purposes. Not nearly enough in my mind.... I think you and I would probably agree about that. Haakon S. wrote: If you read the rest of the thread, there is a serious "down with Europeans" and "out of UN" sentiment. Which must be based on some sence of high moral, or something similar My point in the original post was the indignation that a lot of Europe had with the US position on the war in Iraq, while some of them were reaping the benefits of dealing with Saddam under the table. As for getting out of the UN, I don't think the UN serves much of a useful purpose except to provide jobs to bureacrats. I do believe in helping nations that need help, not because the US is better, but because we are capable. The UN is useful only when someone agrees with it whether its the US, or any other nation. Nations like Libya, North Korea, and Iran stand in the same manner with governments of countries such as most of Europe and the US. This is unfair in one way because a nation controlled by a despot is given as much stock as a nation with a government fairly representing its people. The other way it is unfair, is that the people represented by the despot are treated unfairly as well as the people in the nation who have no more say in how things should be. I think that the human race isn't quite ready for power to be consolidated within one institution. No one world body can fairly represent humankind at this point, although some sort of cooperative venture is a good idea. Maybe a different model similar to what the US uses (no I'm not being uppity, its just the model I know the best), would be appropriate. A legislative body that represents based on population, like the House of Reps, and another body that is evenly divided such as the Senate. The first would provide a larger nation with a larger population a larger say while the second body would limit the effect somewhat to prevent the minority from being drowned out. Some sort of federalism would probably be useful also, allowing individual countries to make decisions on a local level that would affect them the most on a day to day basis. However, I don;t think the world is ready for something like this. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
pseudonym67 wrote: I am perfectly capbable of reading thank you and I have read your little chat with Mike Gaskey at the start of this thread were you make it obvious that the sole point of the thread is to have a dig at the Europeans. pseudonym67 wrote: You were employing the usual tactic of interpretting my statement in the way that best suited your agenda because you had no clear answer to it and because you didn't have a clear answer you tried to put words in my mouth. Who is putting words in whose mouth? My point in the original post was that the UN sanctions that were voted on for the Ivory Coast were going to be a joke if they were like the sanctions against Iraq. The point being that in the last few weeks info has turned up that Saddam had turned the sactions program and managed to make off with something like $21 billion. My heartburn with that is that no one bothers to read the Deufler report that says that Saddam was working to get the sanctions lifted so he could rebuild his WMD program. I know this is sounding real round about but hang with me here, OK? Saddam uses the Oil for Food program that was in place to help his people out because of the sanctions in place so they could get medicines and food. Instead, the money goes to Saddam and his cronies. The point here is that UN sanctions and programs are typically a joke. Europe (and most of the world) will critise and complain that about the US and how it acts yet will work to help a dictator subvert sanctions so that they can be enriched. Thats what pisses me off. I have no problems with having the same rules apply for Haliburton, the UN, or the US government, I just despise the hypocracy. So if I sound like I'm coming down on the Europeans, its because I am, the French and their willingness to insert themselves into the Ivory Coast conflict, while at the same time criticising us in Iraq amazes me. Thats part of why something like the UN isn't going to really work for the forseeable future. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: The point here is that UN sanctions and programs are typically a joke. Sanctions are worse than a joke. They never affect the people they are supposed to hit and always hit the poor and underprivelidged. ( SP ) Doug Goulden wrote: Europe (and most of the world) will critise and complain that about the US and how it acts yet will work to help a dictator subvert sanctions so that they can be enriched. Thats what pisses me off. I have no problems with having the same rules apply for Haliburton, the UN, or the US government, I just despise the hypocracy The problem here is people can make money and it doesn't matter where it's from. I don't know where you live so I don't know if dope is illegal but if it is I bet if you really tried it would take you less than an hour to get some. If you ban something from anywhere you can count on it that someone is going to see a profit in making sure some of it gets there and do it. Remember about prohibition and what a blazing success that was. The only way you could do it is to have strong laws that are enforcable and are enforced but to do that you would to get everyone to work together to both agree on and implement them and to deal with the right wingers and big business who would start bleating that they weren't allowed to trade. And even if you did get all that someone would still find a way through. Doug Goulden wrote: I am, the French and their willingness to insert themselves into the Ivory Coast conflict, while at the same time criticising us in Iraq amazes me. The problem here is your own success I know next to nothing about the ivory coast though suspect i may well be getting know more about it soon and I know even less about French involvement in the region. But whenever I turn on the news I am guaranteed to find out what is happening in America whether I want to or not. The point is your culture has made itself into a large part of our culture so wether you like it or not we are informed enough to have an opinion. Whereas if I wanted to comment on French affairs in the Ivory coast I would have to go and deliberately look it up. Doug Goulden wrote: Thats part of why something like the UN isn't going to really work for the forseeable future. The UN and organisations like it can only work if all parties want it to. Judging by this board and the news I strongly suspect that the Americans dont. pseu
-
Doug Goulden wrote: The point here is that UN sanctions and programs are typically a joke. Sanctions are worse than a joke. They never affect the people they are supposed to hit and always hit the poor and underprivelidged. ( SP ) Doug Goulden wrote: Europe (and most of the world) will critise and complain that about the US and how it acts yet will work to help a dictator subvert sanctions so that they can be enriched. Thats what pisses me off. I have no problems with having the same rules apply for Haliburton, the UN, or the US government, I just despise the hypocracy The problem here is people can make money and it doesn't matter where it's from. I don't know where you live so I don't know if dope is illegal but if it is I bet if you really tried it would take you less than an hour to get some. If you ban something from anywhere you can count on it that someone is going to see a profit in making sure some of it gets there and do it. Remember about prohibition and what a blazing success that was. The only way you could do it is to have strong laws that are enforcable and are enforced but to do that you would to get everyone to work together to both agree on and implement them and to deal with the right wingers and big business who would start bleating that they weren't allowed to trade. And even if you did get all that someone would still find a way through. Doug Goulden wrote: I am, the French and their willingness to insert themselves into the Ivory Coast conflict, while at the same time criticising us in Iraq amazes me. The problem here is your own success I know next to nothing about the ivory coast though suspect i may well be getting know more about it soon and I know even less about French involvement in the region. But whenever I turn on the news I am guaranteed to find out what is happening in America whether I want to or not. The point is your culture has made itself into a large part of our culture so wether you like it or not we are informed enough to have an opinion. Whereas if I wanted to comment on French affairs in the Ivory coast I would have to go and deliberately look it up. Doug Goulden wrote: Thats part of why something like the UN isn't going to really work for the forseeable future. The UN and organisations like it can only work if all parties want it to. Judging by this board and the news I strongly suspect that the Americans dont. pseu
pseudonym67 wrote: The UN and organisations like it can only work if all parties want it to. Judging by this board and the news I strongly suspect that the Americans dont. I would agree on both counts. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?