04-02-2003, 02:33 PM
Hello Occhidiangela,
"Complying with that UN embargo has been a matter of policy of many governments since 1990, however, France and Russia, in support of their own interests, have been trying to get the trade embargo eased, the which was imposed by the UN security council and initially supported."
That sounds as if think the food-for-oil program was wrong. Would you really have left millions of people to die? Sure, it lessened the control over Hussein, but it was the right thing to do, nevertheless, at least in the eyes of most of the world. Luckily your government was smart enough to go along, albeit for economic reasons. Besides that, too much punishment has never made men or nations more peaceful, but it has made them more vengeful and dangerous. WWII is an example of that, and not everyone here in Europe has forgotten that lesson (it sometimes pays to be old).
"So, since 1991, that has mostly been the US, Brit, and Canadian forces, though I am sure others have contributed, and IIRC, there are Spanish ships in the IMSO in the Red Sea and there were at one point French flagged vessels in the Persian Gulf supporting the trade embargo."
I'm glad you admit there were other countries helping in the blockade as well. To bad they didn't send as many ships as the USA did, but that might have to do with the fact that they don't have that many ships. Apart from this, there were others working on an international court of justice, where people like Hussein could be trialed. Unfortunately, those efforts were wrecked when one of the biggest powers in the world got scared for the implications. Not only that, but ALL other nations (be it allied or not) were threatened with military sanctions if the court would ever be used against its people.
"And you might want to note that in the 15 Aug 1991 Resolution 707, the Security Council affirmed that the Government of Iraq was in breach, as a treaty bound signatory, of the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Last I heard, that condition of breach has not been lifted."
Since you are so fond of resolutions and their breaches, I will give you this quote from the "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", which also mentiones the NPT. Sorry for the length of it, but I didn't want to leave anything out and it's definately worth reading.
"It was 14 years ago, on June 7, 1981, that 16 U.S.-made Israeli warplanes bombed and destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility near Baghdad, more than 600 miles from Israel's borders. Prime Minister Menachem Begin claimed the reactor was about to go into operation and was a threat to Israel because it could produce nuclear weapons. Begin's claims were contradicted by a number of experts, but there was considerable circumstantial evidence that Iraq indeed hoped eventually to develop a nuclear weapon. However, Israel's critics pointed out that Iraq was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allowed international inspections of the nuclear facility, while Israel itself refused to sign the treaty, refused inspections of its nuclear facility, and was widely believed to have a large nuclear arsenal.
Thus the deeper meaning of the attack was that it amounted to a declaration of war against the Arab world's efforts to enter the atomic age. The attack was Israel's way of declaring that only the Jewish state would be allowed to participate in advanced technology, while the Arabs would be consigned to non-nuclear technology and second-class economies.
Israel was universally condemned. The White House advised Congress that a "substantial" violation of the Arms Export Control Act prohibition against the use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense "may have occurred" in Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear facility. It was the third time the act had been invoked against Israel, the first two occurring during the Carter administration because of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. But, as in the prior cases, Congress declined to take any action.
Moreover, President Ronald Reagan soon found extenuating circumstances for Israel's conduct. Reagan said: "Israel might have sincerely believed it was a defensive move," adding: "It is difficult for me to envision Israel as being a threat to its neighbors." While Washington joined in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution "strongly" condemning Israel, privately U.S. officials made it known that the United States would veto any article that called for sanctions against Israel. As a result of this pressure, council Resolution 487 stopped short of imposing sanctions and Israel's aggression was let go with a slap on the wrist.
Bobby Inman, the No. 2 man at the Central Intelligence Agency, was less forgiving. He realized that the Israeli warplanes could not have flown to their target without having been guided by aerial photographs supplied by U.S. spy satellites. Under a secret arrangement worked out with Israeli intelligence by Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, Israel had been granted access to U.S. satellite photography. However, Inman knew that access was to be limited to areas posing potential "direct threats" to Israel, in Inman's words. When he discovered Israel had drawn material on such far-away areas as Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, he made a decision to limit its access to photographs covering areas no farther than 250 miles from Israel's border, thereby reducing Israel's satellite intelligence to its immediate neighbors.
This decision infuriated Israel's supporters, and nearly 13 years later came back to haunt Inman when he was nominated by President Bill Clinton as secretary of defense. Israel's supporters, in particular columnist William Safire of the New York Times, took advantage of the occasion to launch harsh personal attacks against Inman, convincing him he could not effectively run the Pentagon amid such powerful criticism. Inman declined the nomination.
Actually, Israel's aggressive intentions toward Iraq should have come as no surprise to anyone, particularly the CIA. Since at least 1979 it had been waging a secret war aimed at disrupting Iraq's nuclear program. The campaign was carried out by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency under the name Operation Sphinx. The operation began at least as early as April 6, 1979, when three bomb explosions in the nuclear facility of the French firm of Constructions Navales et Industrielles de la MÃditerranÃe in La Seyne-Sur-Mer near Marseilles blew up reactor cores about to be shipped to Iraq's facility, setting back Iraq's program by at least half a year.
On June 13, 1980, Dr. Yahya Meshad, an Egyptian nuclear physicist working for Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission, was killed in his Paris hotel room. Meshad had been in France checking on highly enriched uranium that was about to be shipped as the first fuel for Iraq's reactor and, according to Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky, was the victim of Mossad agents. Two months later, starting Aug. 2, a series of bombs exploded at the offices or residences of officials of Iraq's key suppliers in Italy and France: SNIA-Techint, Ansaldo Mercanico Nucleare and Techniatome. The three firms were supplying Iraq with a reactor and hot cells and their officials and workers were harassed by threatening letters.
The terror campaign against Iraq was similar to one carried out by Israel 19 years earlier against West German scientists working on Egypt's rocket program. That campaign was called Operation Damocles and involved kidnapping and letterbombs which caused the deaths of at least five persons in 1962-63. By the time Israel halted its campaign against the German scientists, it had already become clear that, in the words of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's biographer, they "were a group of mediocre scientists who had developed antiquated missiles. The panic that had overtaken the country's leadership...was highly exaggerated." But the damage was done. Not only did the victims suffer directly, but the operation convinced Egypt's leadership of Israel's unyielding hostility.
While Israel's suspicions against Iraq may have been more realistic, its disregard of the significant diplomatic effects of its violent action was similarly myopic. Although Israel repeatedly congratulated itself during the 1991 war against Iraq that its attack represented an early blow to Saddam's militancy, there can be little doubt that one result of the attack was to further radicalize the Iraqi leader and add to his suspicions of the West and his determination to build up Iraq's war machine.
There can be no certainty, of course, that diplomacy would have stemmed Saddam's ambitions. But there can be no doubt that once Israel attacked Iraq with U.S.-made warplanes, Saddam would do whatever he could to harm America and its Persian Gulf friends like Kuwait. The culmination of Saddam's hatred came a decade later when a half-million American military personnel had to be rushed to the Gulf area to war against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."
"Complying with that UN embargo has been a matter of policy of many governments since 1990, however, France and Russia, in support of their own interests, have been trying to get the trade embargo eased, the which was imposed by the UN security council and initially supported."
That sounds as if think the food-for-oil program was wrong. Would you really have left millions of people to die? Sure, it lessened the control over Hussein, but it was the right thing to do, nevertheless, at least in the eyes of most of the world. Luckily your government was smart enough to go along, albeit for economic reasons. Besides that, too much punishment has never made men or nations more peaceful, but it has made them more vengeful and dangerous. WWII is an example of that, and not everyone here in Europe has forgotten that lesson (it sometimes pays to be old).
"So, since 1991, that has mostly been the US, Brit, and Canadian forces, though I am sure others have contributed, and IIRC, there are Spanish ships in the IMSO in the Red Sea and there were at one point French flagged vessels in the Persian Gulf supporting the trade embargo."
I'm glad you admit there were other countries helping in the blockade as well. To bad they didn't send as many ships as the USA did, but that might have to do with the fact that they don't have that many ships. Apart from this, there were others working on an international court of justice, where people like Hussein could be trialed. Unfortunately, those efforts were wrecked when one of the biggest powers in the world got scared for the implications. Not only that, but ALL other nations (be it allied or not) were threatened with military sanctions if the court would ever be used against its people.
"And you might want to note that in the 15 Aug 1991 Resolution 707, the Security Council affirmed that the Government of Iraq was in breach, as a treaty bound signatory, of the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Last I heard, that condition of breach has not been lifted."
Since you are so fond of resolutions and their breaches, I will give you this quote from the "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", which also mentiones the NPT. Sorry for the length of it, but I didn't want to leave anything out and it's definately worth reading.
"It was 14 years ago, on June 7, 1981, that 16 U.S.-made Israeli warplanes bombed and destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility near Baghdad, more than 600 miles from Israel's borders. Prime Minister Menachem Begin claimed the reactor was about to go into operation and was a threat to Israel because it could produce nuclear weapons. Begin's claims were contradicted by a number of experts, but there was considerable circumstantial evidence that Iraq indeed hoped eventually to develop a nuclear weapon. However, Israel's critics pointed out that Iraq was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allowed international inspections of the nuclear facility, while Israel itself refused to sign the treaty, refused inspections of its nuclear facility, and was widely believed to have a large nuclear arsenal.
Thus the deeper meaning of the attack was that it amounted to a declaration of war against the Arab world's efforts to enter the atomic age. The attack was Israel's way of declaring that only the Jewish state would be allowed to participate in advanced technology, while the Arabs would be consigned to non-nuclear technology and second-class economies.
Israel was universally condemned. The White House advised Congress that a "substantial" violation of the Arms Export Control Act prohibition against the use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense "may have occurred" in Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear facility. It was the third time the act had been invoked against Israel, the first two occurring during the Carter administration because of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. But, as in the prior cases, Congress declined to take any action.
Moreover, President Ronald Reagan soon found extenuating circumstances for Israel's conduct. Reagan said: "Israel might have sincerely believed it was a defensive move," adding: "It is difficult for me to envision Israel as being a threat to its neighbors." While Washington joined in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution "strongly" condemning Israel, privately U.S. officials made it known that the United States would veto any article that called for sanctions against Israel. As a result of this pressure, council Resolution 487 stopped short of imposing sanctions and Israel's aggression was let go with a slap on the wrist.
Bobby Inman, the No. 2 man at the Central Intelligence Agency, was less forgiving. He realized that the Israeli warplanes could not have flown to their target without having been guided by aerial photographs supplied by U.S. spy satellites. Under a secret arrangement worked out with Israeli intelligence by Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, Israel had been granted access to U.S. satellite photography. However, Inman knew that access was to be limited to areas posing potential "direct threats" to Israel, in Inman's words. When he discovered Israel had drawn material on such far-away areas as Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, he made a decision to limit its access to photographs covering areas no farther than 250 miles from Israel's border, thereby reducing Israel's satellite intelligence to its immediate neighbors.
This decision infuriated Israel's supporters, and nearly 13 years later came back to haunt Inman when he was nominated by President Bill Clinton as secretary of defense. Israel's supporters, in particular columnist William Safire of the New York Times, took advantage of the occasion to launch harsh personal attacks against Inman, convincing him he could not effectively run the Pentagon amid such powerful criticism. Inman declined the nomination.
Actually, Israel's aggressive intentions toward Iraq should have come as no surprise to anyone, particularly the CIA. Since at least 1979 it had been waging a secret war aimed at disrupting Iraq's nuclear program. The campaign was carried out by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency under the name Operation Sphinx. The operation began at least as early as April 6, 1979, when three bomb explosions in the nuclear facility of the French firm of Constructions Navales et Industrielles de la MÃditerranÃe in La Seyne-Sur-Mer near Marseilles blew up reactor cores about to be shipped to Iraq's facility, setting back Iraq's program by at least half a year.
On June 13, 1980, Dr. Yahya Meshad, an Egyptian nuclear physicist working for Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission, was killed in his Paris hotel room. Meshad had been in France checking on highly enriched uranium that was about to be shipped as the first fuel for Iraq's reactor and, according to Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky, was the victim of Mossad agents. Two months later, starting Aug. 2, a series of bombs exploded at the offices or residences of officials of Iraq's key suppliers in Italy and France: SNIA-Techint, Ansaldo Mercanico Nucleare and Techniatome. The three firms were supplying Iraq with a reactor and hot cells and their officials and workers were harassed by threatening letters.
The terror campaign against Iraq was similar to one carried out by Israel 19 years earlier against West German scientists working on Egypt's rocket program. That campaign was called Operation Damocles and involved kidnapping and letterbombs which caused the deaths of at least five persons in 1962-63. By the time Israel halted its campaign against the German scientists, it had already become clear that, in the words of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's biographer, they "were a group of mediocre scientists who had developed antiquated missiles. The panic that had overtaken the country's leadership...was highly exaggerated." But the damage was done. Not only did the victims suffer directly, but the operation convinced Egypt's leadership of Israel's unyielding hostility.
While Israel's suspicions against Iraq may have been more realistic, its disregard of the significant diplomatic effects of its violent action was similarly myopic. Although Israel repeatedly congratulated itself during the 1991 war against Iraq that its attack represented an early blow to Saddam's militancy, there can be little doubt that one result of the attack was to further radicalize the Iraqi leader and add to his suspicions of the West and his determination to build up Iraq's war machine.
There can be no certainty, of course, that diplomacy would have stemmed Saddam's ambitions. But there can be no doubt that once Israel attacked Iraq with U.S.-made warplanes, Saddam would do whatever he could to harm America and its Persian Gulf friends like Kuwait. The culmination of Saddam's hatred came a decade later when a half-million American military personnel had to be rushed to the Gulf area to war against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."