NationStates Jolt Archive

Americans of limited understanding often seem to be critical of the United Nations and consider UN sanctions to be effete and ineffective.

I provide one example to illustrate just how potent and effectice UN sactions can be:

Iraq.

UN sanctions against iraq succeeded completely in causing the iraqi government to abandon its nuclear and WMD programs and to dispose of its stockpiles.

Leading up to the US invasion, expert inspectors suggested that this was the case.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the US Iraq Survey group confirmed that the sanctions had indeed been completely effective.

In fact, in Charles Duelfer's final report to the CIA, he states explicitly that no evidence was found that the iraqi government had been even *planning* to make WMDs or nuclear weapons unless UN sanctions were lifted.

The Iraq experience serves as a model of how to disarm nations which the developed and civilized worlds to not want to have unconventional weapons.

so i take it you stand with madeline albright - half a million+ dead children is worth it.

This is not entirely true.

Sanctions ONLY have their benefits against established countries with established commerce interests abroad. The taking away of those commerce interests through sanctions would severely cripple the countries who rely on foreign capital, therfore encouraging the country to change its current policy in question by the international community.

However, in sanctioning off a rogue/independent state, as my predecessor points out, is sometimes not the best plan.

In a state like N. Korea and Iraq, sanctions would only allow more citizens to die and starve while the government cannot/will not provide economic relief to the masses. It might also push a country to war over a neighbor with resources, as the demand for more oil/food/raw materials/other resources WITH ongoing sanctions allow no choice but war(ie. Japan in WWII after United States cut off crude oil).

but look at the side-effects of those sanctions. Those sanctions did prevent Saddam from making new weapons, but some of those prohibited chemicals were water-treatment chemicals. Iraq's water infrastructure fell apart during the '90s, not to be put back together until the present invasion.
Oil For Food, a direct effect of the sanctions allowed Saddam to skim off billions of dollars while nothing got to his people. Those billions of dollars actually went back to UN officials in an effort to bring sanctions to and end with bribery.
If those bribes had worked, as Duelfer reported, Saddam would have recontinued his weapons programs.

It wasn't enough for Iraq to be sanctioned. It was far better to have Hussein removed. Recent events suggest this.

Americans of limited understanding often seem to be critical of the United Nations and consider UN sanctions to be effete and ineffective.

I provide one example to illustrate just how potent and effectice UN sactions can be:

Iraq.

UN sanctions against iraq succeeded completely in causing the iraqi government to abandon its nuclear and WMD programs and to dispose of its stockpiles.

Leading up to the US invasion, expert inspectors suggested that this was the case.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the US Iraq Survey group confirmed that the sanctions had indeed been completely effective.

In fact, in Charles Duelfer's final report to the CIA, he states explicitly that no evidence was found that the iraqi government had been even *planning* to make WMDs or nuclear weapons unless UN sanctions were lifted.

The Iraq experience serves as a model of how to disarm nations which the developed and civilized worlds to not want to have unconventional weapons.
Kewl! Now do the same thing with Korea and Iran and the US can go home and contemplate its navel. :)

It wasn't enough for Iraq to be sanctioned. It was far better to have Hussein removed. Recent events suggest this.


It would have been better that Saddam was removed with the liberation of Kuwait instead of years later. BUT, when your coalition is comprised of Arab military forces, it probably wouldn't have been a wise decision at the time.

Totally agree with you there, man. Bush Snr. dropped the ball when he didn't follow up on his promise with the Kurds. back in '91.

Totally agree with you there, man. Bush Snr. dropped the ball when he didn't follow up on his promise with the Kurds. back in '91.
I agree. One of the true dark blots on the American record! :(

It would have been better that Saddam was removed with the liberation of Kuwait instead of years later. BUT, when your coalition is comprised of Arab military forces, it probably wouldn't have been a wise decision at the time.
The reason Hussein wasn't removed then was because the American military was afraid. If anyone went farther than Nasiriyah into Iraq, then Hussein would unleash his WMDs. It leads me to a conclusion that Bush sr. was a panzee. Arguable, the US military was far stronger then, and even the USSR had a few troops in the coalition, removing that threat. Yet Bush backed down.

The reason Hussein wasn't removed then was because the American military was afraid. If anyone went farther than Nasiriyah into Iraq, then Hussein would unleash his WMDs. It leads me to a conclusion that Bush sr. was a panzee. Arguable, the US military was far stronger then, and even the USSR had a few troops in the coalition, removing that threat. Yet Bush backed down.
Not so. The reason the US halted where it did is because the Administration was concerned about giving the image of "overkill," particularly after the media began calling the highway from Kuwait into Iraq "The Highway of Death."

The reason Hussein wasn't removed then was because the American military was afraid. If anyone went farther than Nasiriyah into Iraq, then Hussein would unleash his WMDs. It leads me to a conclusion that Bush sr. was a panzee. Arguable, the US military was far stronger then, and even the USSR had a few troops in the coalition, removing that threat. Yet Bush backed down.
The USSR did not exist, just the same as any facts which would assert your fantasy. Roll one for me.

The USSR did not exist, just the same as any facts which would assert your fantasy. Roll one for me.

lol

The actual reason the US stopped where it did during Gulf War I had nothing to do with fear of WMD's, Arabs protesting, Kurds (BTW-It wasn't the Kurds but the Shia in South Iraq that we were going to help.)

The reason we stopped is that the UN mandate for the war had been met. The UN Resolution that authorized the war place the condition of stopping on the removal of Iraqi forces from the soverign country of Kuwait. Once that had been met the UN would not back any other action to remove Saddam.

Yes, Bush 41 could have said FU to the UN(wish he would have), much like his son has done (glad he did) but imagine the outcry from the left and the socialists of Europe once that happened.

By adhering to the UN resolution untold suffering was rained down on the Iraqi people by Saddam, his sons and the Baathist party.

*coughoilforfoodcough*

successful my ass

*coughoilforfoodcough*

successful my ass

*coughUSasguiltyasanybodyelsecough*

Follow the links:

Here (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11569)and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8379851)

Anyway diverting attention from the facts that the sanctions were working by saying oil for food doesn't make you right.

I seem to remember Nelson Mandela praising the use of sanctions against South Africa too, I may well try and find a link to that for you.

U.N. sanctions also helped destroy Rhodesia and deliver it into the hands of the arch-gangster and totalitarian thug, Robert the Racist Mugabe.

*coughoilforfoodcough*

successful my ass

*CoughFoodForOilWouldHaveNeverHappenedIfBushSeniorDidn'tPussyOutAndLetSaddamOffTheHookDuringDesertSt ormCough*

It is true that they don't always work, but when applied properly in the correct circumstances they can work well.

Here's a link for US details of sanctions in apartheid era South Africa (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/56.htm)

And this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1514976.stm) has a little of Nelson Mandelas views on them too.

Both of these views you might notice are pretty positive on them.

here is a good idea. Not logical by any means and is here for the viewing enjoyment of my fellow nations.

*ahem* Lake Iraq with the Iran Desert Amusement Park and the Saudi Arabian Parking Lot.

How do we achieve all this you ask? Simple! NUKE THEM. Claim self defense and then make America part 2.
:gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

:headbang:

The UN is completely useless these days. Sure, it was a great concept, and it worked for a bit, but now... it's just so corrupt that it's not even funny. Seriously, all it does anymore is condemn the US and Israel.

Honestly, if the United States and Israel were to drop out of the UN, it'd probably fall apart since they'd have no one to blame for anything. Not to mention that the US provides a rather large percantage of the annual donations to the UN.

Anyways, I really don't feel like ranting right now so I'll probably come back later and post something longer when I feel like it.

The UN is completely useless these days. Sure, it was a great concept, and it worked for a bit, but now... it's just so corrupt that it's not even funny. Seriously, all it does anymore is condemn the US and Israel.

Honestly, if the United States and Israel were to drop out of the UN, it'd probably fall apart since they'd have no one to blame for anything. Not to mention that the US provides a rather large percantage of the annual donations to the UN.

Anyways, I really don't feel like ranting right now so I'll probably come back later and post something longer when I feel like it.

The UN is hardly useless anymore, it may just appear to be when the US completely ignores it every time the rest of the world disagrees with the US in it and the US government then trumpets that it's useless.

Do you really think that everthing in the UN revolves around the US and Israel?

The US is meant to provide a large percentage of the UNs fees as it is the largest economic power and it signed up to provide according to its means, unfortunately the US owes a lot of money to the UN as it hasn't kept up the payments properly.

Do you really think that everthing in the UN revolves around the US and Israel?

Well, if we look at what the general assembly whines and bitches about then yes, yes it is.

The UN Sanctions did, as the original poster pointed out, succeed in preventing Saddam in building his stockpiles. However, as the subsequent poster pointed out, they also caused 500,000+ to die. I suppose it depends on which view you take, i.e. how many people Saddam would have killed with his weapons. I take the second view, that the sanctions weren't good, as I believe that more people died as a result of them than were saved by them.

As far as removing Saddam during Gulf War I, that would have been a bad idea, since the U.S. had no business going there in the first place.

so i take it you stand with madeline albright - half a million+ dead children is worth it.

That is indead what she said, I also saw the interview. Great that you still remember it. :)

The UN Sanctions did, as the original poster pointed out, succeed in preventing Saddam in building his stockpiles. However, as the subsequent poster pointed out, they also caused 500,000+ to die. I suppose it depends on which view you take, i.e. how many people Saddam would have killed with his weapons. I take the second view, that the sanctions weren't good, as I believe that more people died as a result of them than were saved by them.

As far as removing Saddam during Gulf War I, that would have been a bad idea, since the U.S. had no business going there in the first place.
So, you'd have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait like we did, and then allowed him to rebuild whatever weapons programs he wanted?

Goddamn apartheid was the best thing to ever happen to South Africa. There were at least professionals working in the industries, rather than untrained niggers because of this affirmitive action shit. White professionals are leaving S.A. in record numbers now, all because of goddamn Nelson Mandela and the rest of this hypocritical word and its fucking trade sanctions. Why is everyone praising Nelson Mandela, he was the worst thing to happen to South Africa....ever...and he was a terroris. Now they're replacing trained white professionals with illiterate, freeloading black men. Thanks for destroying South Africa.

So, you'd have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait like we did, and then allowed him to rebuild whatever weapons programs he wanted?
They had no business kicking him out of Kuwait via war without trying negotiating first.

Goddamn apartheid was the best thing to ever happen to South Africa. There were at least professionals working in the industries, rather than untrained niggers because of this affirmitive action shit. White professionals are leaving S.A. in record numbers now, all because of goddamn Nelson Mandela and the rest of this hypocritical word and its fucking trade sanctions. Why is everyone praising Nelson Mandela, he was the worst thing to happen to South Africa....ever...and he was a terroris. Now they're replacing trained white professionals with illiterate, freeloading black men. Thanks for destroying South Africa.
My, what an atrocious and uninformed thing to say. But that's typical of racists.

They had no business kicking him out of Kuwait via war without trying negotiating first.
I would have thought invading a sovereign nation without cause would mean you lose the rights to negotiation.

So, you'd have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait like we did, and then allowed him to rebuild whatever weapons programs he wanted?

Actually, I'm wondering if this is one of those who would have just let Saddam have Kuwait and look the other way....

I would have thought invading a sovereign nation without cause would mean you lose the rights to negotiation.
You mean like the U.S. did to Panama the year before?

Actually, I'm wondering if this is one of those who would have just let Saddam have Kuwait and look the other way....
Not look the other way, but going to war first was not the best option.

You mean like the U.S. did to Panama the year before?
From what I've read, Noriega attempted to interfere with the Panama Canal, then fix they're national election. Considering, at this time, the Panama Canal was US property, it was well within the US's rights to prevent anything like that.

Not look the other way, but going to war first was not the best option.
And delaying action, allowing Saddam to more firmly entrench his forces, was best.

Not look the other way, but going to war first was not the best option.

So with Saddam's army already invading, killing people and destroying things, you think we had the ability to "talk" him into giving up and going home?

Not so. The reason the US halted where it did is because the Administration was concerned about giving the image of "overkill," particularly after the media began calling the highway from Kuwait into Iraq "The Highway of Death."
Showing yet another example of Bush Sr.'s cowardice.

The USSR did not exist, just the same as any facts which would assert your fantasy. Roll one for me.
While it began breaking up that year, the USSR didn't officially dissolve until Christmas of that year. The attempted coup didn't happen until August. The war, on the other hand, happened in February.

Not look the other way, but going to war first was not the best option.

KUM-BA-YAH! let's call Saddam and sit around the campfire... :rolleyes:

what a great way of negotiating, that kind of attitude equals aiding and abetting our enemies.

what a great way of negotiating, that kind of attitude equals aiding and abetting our enemies.
The attitude of not immediately bombing whoever we suspect into glass?
I'm sorry, but you seem to have read a bit too much into his statement that going to war first thing isn't the best.

Unless you think going to war is the first option?

The attitude of not immediately bombing whoever we suspect into glass?
I'm sorry, but you seem to have read a bit too much into his statement that going to war first thing isn't the best.

Unless you think going to war is the first option?

in some cases it is the first option, there are some people with whom one does not negotiate or blabbers on endlessly in the commie UN.

in some cases it is the first option, there are some people with whom one does not negotiate or blabbers on endlessly in the commie UN.

THANK you. Finally, someone who recognises that war is a necessity, perhaps an unfortunate one, but a necessity nonetheless.

Or wait, maybe we should have carried on with the negotiations and appeasements with Herr Hitler, eh? I'm sure things would have turned out much better if the UK hadn't declared war.

The actual reason the US stopped where it did during Gulf War I had nothing to do with fear of WMD's, Arabs protesting, Kurds (BTW-It wasn't the Kurds but the Shia in South Iraq that we were going to help.)

The reason we stopped is that the UN mandate for the war had been met. The UN Resolution that authorized the war place the condition of stopping on the removal of Iraqi forces from the soverign country of Kuwait. Once that had been met the UN would not back any other action to remove Saddam.

Yes, Bush 41 could have said FU to the UN(wish he would have), much like his son has done (glad he did) but imagine the outcry from the left and the socialists of Europe once that happened.

By adhering to the UN resolution untold suffering was rained down on the Iraqi people by Saddam, his sons and the Baathist party.

That's his official line. But I doubt that was what was going through his head.

Goddamn apartheid was the best thing to ever happen to South Africa. There were at least professionals working in the industries, rather than untrained niggers because of this affirmitive action shit. White professionals are leaving S.A. in record numbers now, all because of goddamn Nelson Mandela and the rest of this hypocritical word and its fucking trade sanctions. Why is everyone praising Nelson Mandela, he was the worst thing to happen to South Africa....ever...and he was a terroris. Now they're replacing trained white professionals with illiterate, freeloading black men. Thanks for destroying South Africa.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I detest the current SA government, my hatred for apartheid is much greater. Apartheid was one of the greatest evils in history, eerily reminiscent of Nazism. Even though I dislike Mandela and despise Mbeki, I must say that the death of apartheid is a death I do not mourn.

Kewl! Now do the same thing with Korea and Iran and the US can go home and contemplate its navel. :)

Hehe well I doubt if we will see this happen.