Saddam overthrown - should UN sanctions on Iraq now be lifted?
Yes
No
I see little point in sanctions now. Yeah, we can prove a political point by keeping them in place, but really, they are worthless now. The Iraqi regime which was supposed to be punished, is gone. Like it or not, Gen. Garner is calling the shots. Sanctions will do diddly-do to stop Americans from whatever they are doing.
The conditions for lifting the sanctions have to be fulfilled - the authorities in control of Iraq have yet to prove that all of Iraq's WMDs have been destroyed.
On the other hand, I have always been against the sanctions as being a useless way of controlling WMD proliferation that punishes the innocent people of Iraq instead, and so I'm in favour of lifting the sanctions now, just as I was in favour of lifting the sanctions during Saddam's regime.
Oh come now, this is a rhetorical poll. Ofcourse they should be lifted, but America will now have full control over the Iraqi economy, so what's the difference if they lift the sanctions or not?
What kitty kat said.
I am all for lifting sanctions, however, it proves one point. US was never interested in WMD's, all we wanted was to take control of Iraq and its oil reserves. If we were interested in WMD's we will let the inspectors come back in and certify that there are no WMD's as required by UN resolutions to lift the sanctions. At least we(US) can try to certify ourselves.
Remove the sanctions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Remove the sanctions.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but with the approval of UN and after certification by US that they have failed to find any WMD and therfore the invasion was illegal.
Since the sanctions are already there for the past 12 years, therefore it wont matter much if they there for a little longer. The sanctions were put because of Iraqi WMD's. For them to be removed, it should be ensured that the Inspectors be allowed to go back to Iraq, and if they certify that there are NO WMD's there, then they should be removed. In the mean time, Oil for food program can be revived.
I voted "Yes" because sanctions do not hold any meaning. US can bring into Iraq without checking with UN. US has invaded and took control of Iraq without UN's approval, so sanctions are meaningless. In fact, the whole UN has been irrelevant all the way from the beginning.
But a resolution should be passed by UN that if no WMDs are passed in next 30 days, US should pay all the damages caused during the war, pay for all the civilians lives lost, rebuild Iraq without any cost to Iraq/UN and that too all under UN supervision.
add above to my response:
- give up all its WMDs of all kinds.
- sign an agreement to not invade any country, unless attacked.
I voted no because the question was worded "Saddam overthrown - should UN sanctions on Iraq now be lifted?" - "now" being the operative word. At this very moment, no, they should not be lifted. "Now" they are not affecting civilians, they are only a diplomatic construct. They should not be lifted until there is a planned system to replace them. Without such a system the US, being the dominant force, would be able to do as it pleases for good or ill. With a structure enumerating what can, should, and cannot be done people will be held accountable - this is not only aimed at the US. Rules are necessary for order. At the moment the sanctions are the only international rules specific to Iraq in effect.
Lift the sanctions only if the rest of the world community agrees.
Just because America finds it conveniently economically viable to further it's interests by lifting the sanctions and using the plight of the Iraqis as the 'bait', that doesn't mean America is correct.
It's ironic that America now seems that lifting is viable.
Where were they over the past 12 years?
The Iraqis plight was still the same if not worse and America was the main driving force in the upkeep of the sanctions.
At least Russia and France can see through the bull....
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by cat-woman: *
**Oh come now, this is a rhetorical poll. Ofcourse they *should be lifted, but *America will now have full control over the Iraqi economy, so what's the difference if they lift the sanctions or not?
[/QUOTE]
You read my mind.
That's why i don't feel comfortable participating in the poll... perhaps limited options.
I voted no. It is better for control of the oil to be under UN rather than US
what makes u think that the oil trade will not be under US control even if the sanctions are not lifted...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *
I voted no. It is better for control of the oil to be under UN rather than US
[/QUOTE]
Sure about that Google?
I vote for the control of the oil be solely for the benefit of Iraqi people, which in turn will probobly benefit other countries as well.
I votr for a fair and honest leader for the Iraqi's. Whether that person is Shihite, Sunni, or Secular.
Noted that the U.N. was up and ready to resume the Oil for Food program.
Read somewhere that the U.N. profits because of that program...
Was suggested by the U.N. even before the war wrapped up... I don't know that it's ended..but settled down? maybe?
I don't think Oil for Food benefits the Iraqi people really. I think it would be okay resumed temperarily to provide for those that were devistated, but only temperarily. Not as a way of life. They need profitable trade that also provides for the people. And lucky for them, they have options other than oil. They could develope an outstanding travel business just because of the historical value of Mesopatania. Babylon. Tigress and Euphrates. Even the Garden of Eden.
Hard thing (I think) is creating a new way of life for the Iraqi's.
The Iraqi's should be able to run their own trade and business for food and medicines using their own resources.
I have read there is viable land in Iraq. Read that the Aussie's were willing to help in this area also..
I do think imports and exports should be monitored for WMD in all countries, not just Iraq, or the mid-east.
Actually I think WMD should be completely banned, including nukes. I mean gosh, the funds could be better spent on improving lives, saving life. Look at the Sars epidemic, or Aids.
I'm rambling.
werent the russians who got the most oil (o for food programme? )
read that some where
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *
I voted no. It is better for control of the oil to be under UN rather than US
[/QUOTE]
I voted yes, cuz perhaps its better to let them import food/etc etc. then just thinking bout who s controlling it :)