ronscarpa Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 UN votes to lift Iraq sanctionsWednesday, Mar 13 2013 - Daily Mail OnlineThe UN Security Council voted overwhelmingly today to end 13-year-old sanctions against Iraq and gave the United States and Britain extraordinary powers to run the country and its lucrative oil industry.Despite misgivings by many council members, the 14-0 vote was a victory for the Bush administration, which made some last-minute concessions that opened the door to an independent, albeit limited UN role and the possibility of UN weapons inspectors returning to post-war Iraq.The only opposition came from Syria, which left its seat empty and did not cast a vote in the 15-member council."The lifting of sanctions marks a momentous event for the people of Iraq," US Ambassador John Negroponte told the council after the vote. "It is time for the Iraqi people to benefit from their natural resources."In Paris, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "This is a wonderful day for the people of Iraq."Compromise to reach consensusBritish Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, noting the divisiveness on Iraq, said, "The whole United Nations system will hope that the vote which we have just taken marks a return to sustained consensus on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues we have faced."He was referring to the council's earlier refusal, particularly on the part of Russia, China, Germany and France, to authorize the US-led war against Iraq that ousted the government of President Saddam Hussein. All four voted "yes".The final compromise in the seven-page resolution was an agreement by Washington for a Security Council review within 12 months on the implementation of the resolution. But the measure does not need to be renewed and stays in effect until an internationally recognized Iraqi government is established.French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said while the resolution was "not perfect", it provided "a credible framework within which the international community will be able to lend support for the Iraqi people. This is why we supported it."And Germany's UN ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said bluntly: "This resolution is a compromise.""It does not fulfill every wish of all parties, but as compared to the initial draft of the co-sponsors, we have achieved substantial improvements," he said.Resolution gives power to USThe UN sanctions were imposed a few days after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But after Saddam's fall, the United States argued there was no reason for the trade and financial embargoes to continue.The resolution would give the United States and Britain broad powers to run Iraq and sell its oil to fund reconstruction. It would also protect Iraq against lawsuits or attachments of its oil revenues until a permanent Iraqi government is established.Weapons inspectorsThe United States signalled its willingness this week to have inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, responsible for nuclear materials, return to Iraq.But the Bush administration is not eager for the return of chemical, biological and missile inspectors, commanded by Hans Blix, who has openly challenged some US assertions.Britain, however, appeared to disagree.Greenstock in his speech said among the issues the Security Council would need to take up in "due time" was the future of the inspection commissions "as they relate to the complete disarmament of Iraq under previous resolutions."Before the war, US President George W Bush repeatedly accused Iraq of having illicit weapons of mass destruction and said it would have to be disarmed by force. US teams searching for the dangerous weapons have not yet found them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-181846/UN-votes-lift-Iraq-sanctions.htmlDaily Mail Link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easyrider Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Isnt this old news? Edited March 14, 2013 by easyrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 If this article is 'legit' it appears that Ch. 7 has been completely removed!?!? This could be rather 'huge' on the positive impact it will have. I see that they're also still protected from lawsuits. Isnt this old news? Well, Secretary of State C. Powell (That's not H. Clinton)... So it must be recent. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disciple7 Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 is this accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kid4dinar Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 I hope this is a brand new article. Because this is huge news. Next stop WTO... Shouldn't IMF release them to rev? Hoping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 heres another one yee hah ... but its dated differently http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030523/asp/foreign/story_1997128.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 I hope this is a brand new article. Because this is huge news. Next stop WTO... Shouldn't IMF release them to rev? Hoping... Not too sure on how fast WTO accession will be as some feel the economy isn't ready as all sectors are not easily able to meet demands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 dang it wont work but it was dated 2003 .. the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staunch Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Umm.......??????? I think.......umm....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Some sanctions were lifted in December 2010, but not all...the articles are in the archives. Thanks for your efforts regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobCoss Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Really, Colin Powell was before Clinton & Bush has been gone for how many years? I think John Kerry replaced Hillarious so how new & legit can this be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easyrider Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Really, Colin Powell was before Clinton & Bush has been gone for how many years? I think John Kerry replaced Hillarious so how new & legit can this be! thats what i was thinking ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-05-23/bush-welcomes-iraq-sanctions-decision/1858064 colin powel was george w bushs secratary of state in 2001 thru 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easyrider Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-05-23/bush-welcomes-iraq-sanctions-decision/1858064 colin powel was george w bushs secratary of state in 2001 thru 2004 this is old news.. so I'm guessing this is a dated article Edited March 14, 2013 by easyrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell yes its floatinmg around the gurus propaganda machine . yesterday it was brought over we had the same discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Sorry Guys this is definitely a recycled article but it was still real interesting, huh Dontlop. Thank You For The Effort Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/May%202003%20News/23%20n/UN%20Ends%20Iraq%20Sanctions.htm Edited March 14, 2013 by dontlop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yup - I think this was more of an article from 2003. Probably happened 10 years ago though. Interesting to think about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyf Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 "to end 13-year-old sanctions" Sanctions came in on 6th Aug 1990. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGlobe7 Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 i stopped at bush administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 whats the differance between that aljazeer link i put up .. and the article ? UNITED NATIONS, 23 May 2003 — The UN Security Council voted overwhelmingly yesterday to end 13-year-old sanctions on Iraq and gave the United States and Britain extraordinary powers to run the country and its lucrative oil industry. Despite misgivings by many Council members, the 14-0 vote was a victory for the Bush administration, which made some last-minute concessions that opened the door to an independent, albeit limited, UN role and the possibility of UN weapons inspectors returning to postwar Iraq. The only opposition came from Syria, Iraq’s neighbor and the only Arab member of the Council. Syria left its seat empty and did not cast a vote. “The lifting of sanctions marks a momentous event for the people of Iraq,” US Ambassador John Negroponte told the Council after the vote. “It is time for the Iraqi people to benefit from their natural resources.” Without UN action to lift the sanctions, Washington would have been in a legal no man’s land, with many firms unwilling to engage in trade with Iraq. Some 8.3 million barrels of Iraqi oil stored at the Turkish port of Ceyhan can now be exported. “The oil is ready to flow. The tanks are full,” one Council diplomat said: “I think you will find it will move quite quickly.” The final compromise in the seven-page resolution was an agreement by Washington for a Security Council review within 12 months on the implementation of the resolution. But the measure does not need to be renewed and stays in effect until an internationally recognized Iraqi government is established. In Paris, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw referred to the divisiveness in the Council when Russia, China, Germany, France and others refused to approve the US-led invasion. “We now face the task of rebuilding Iraq, building it up to a state far better than what went before, under Saddam. And with a bit of luck the international community can now move forward under the United Nations,” Straw said. France, Russia and Germany, who voted in favor of the resolution, all said the document was far from perfect. French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said the resolution provided “a credible framework within which the international community will be able to lend support for the Iraqi people.” Russia’s UN ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, told the Council, “Definitely, it was a compromise,” adding: “The significance is primarily that it creates an international legal basis for joint efforts to be made by the entire international community to deal with the crisis.” And Germany’s UN ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said bluntly: “This resolution is a compromise. It does not fulfill every wish of all parties, but as compared to the initial draft of the co-sponsors, we have achieved substantial improvements.” The UN sanctions were imposed a few days after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But after Saddam’s fall, the United States argued there was no reason for the trade and financial embargoes to continue. The resolution would give the United States and Britain broad powers to run Iraq and sell its oil to fund reconstruction. It would also protect Iraq against lawsuits or attachments of its oil revenues until a permanent Iraqi government is established. In Iraq, US forces had a firefight Wednesday with a group of Iraqis. They also captured a top Baath Party leader. Gunmen fired rocket-propelled grenades at a US armored vehicle in the tense town of Falluja late on Wednesday, prompting heavy retaliation that killed two Iraqis. Residents accused the soldiers of firing indiscriminately. The US Central Command said in a statement that Aziz Salih Numan, who was captured Wednesday, was a Baath Party regional command chairman responsible for west Baghdad. He was also a former governor of the southern cities of Karbala and Najaf. He was number eight on Washington’s list of most wanted Iraqis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markinsa Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 OLD NEWS, see Previous Topic Posted within the last week that was locked. Locking this topic as well. - THANK YOU MARKINSA......I appreciate the major correction. It was sent to me in an email, and when I went to the link, there it was - so I posted it. EVERYONE, I'm sorry for the erroneous post...RON 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts