Interesting tidbit in this article on no WMD in Iraq, and a * decision

[ShaneGR]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030731/D7SKQFD80.html

Talks about Dems, rightfully so, blasting Kay and Wolfowitz over lack of WMD. But, at the end there is an interesting line:

Meanwhile, Bush extended for another year trade sanctions and the freezing of Iraqi government assets.

"The crisis that led to the declaration of a national emergency on August 2, 1990, has not been fully resolved," he wrote leaders of the Senate and House.



Uh, what? So we're spending 4 billion a month but no US company (Without government Halliburton, Worldcom backing) can invest there and no Iraqi can sell anything to a US company?

WTF?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

1. Am I right in thinking...

that with trade sanctions in place, any other nation that trades with Iraq will be punished for breaking the US sanctions? In other words, if France (for example) were to buy oil from Iraq, then France would have sanctions put on them also?

I bet that is the way it works. I mean why else keep the sanctions in place except to prevent any other nation from trading with Iraq and Iraqis?

[mike_c]

2. it's one of the oldest tricks in the imperialist book...

...make rules that allow you trade monopolies with your colonies and client states.