French, Germany, and China supplying illegal weapons to Iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sprocket · 09-09-2004, 09:15 PM

Article here:

link:

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/28139.htm

Quote:

AXIS OF BACKSTAB
By NILES LATHEM

September 8, 2004 --

WASHINGTON — France, Russia and China supplied Saddam Hussein with missiles, arms, defense technology and spare parts before — and after — the start of the Iraq war, an explosive new book claims.

In the book, Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz cites a slew of illegal covert arms deals between Saddam and several countries that opposed the U.S. invasion in the months before and after the start of war in March 2003.

The book, "Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies," cites secret Pentagon and CIA reports and interviews with top U.S. defense and intelligence officials.

Gertz claims that many of the weapons sold to Iraq in this critical time frame — and in violation of U.N. embargoes — were used by Ba'athist terrorists against U.S. forces after the fall of Saddam.

The book claims that U.S. Navy SEALs discovered that half the rockets fired by pro-Saddam guerrillas in the Oct. 26, 2003, attack on Baghdad's Al-Rashid Hotel — where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying — were French-made Matra SNEB 68 mm rockets.

The missiles were in "pristine condition," according to the book.

France, Russia and China have consistently denied that they violated the U.N. arms embargoes imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war to free Kuwait.

But the book claims that weaponry from supposed U.S. allies in the war on terror made its way to Iraq during that critical period. The arms included Russian-made anti-tank weapons that were used by Saddam's Fedayeen militia to disable two M1A1 tanks in Najaf during the initial invasion, according to Gertz.

The author also claims:

* U.S. forces discovered that a missile that shot down a U.S. A-10 Warthog fighter-bomber during the latest war was a French-made Roland that was shipped to Iraq after sanctions went into effect following Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

* Shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles used by Ba'athist insurgents to shoot down U.S. helicopters after the war were "hybrid weapons built from components" that Germany — another vocal opponent of the war that ousted Saddam — "illegally supplied to Iraq."

* China, Iraq's top military supplier after Russia, provided Baghdad with technical assistance on its fiber-optic air-defense radar system during the run-up to the war. During that period, U.S and British aircraft patrolling Iraq's no-fly zones came under constant attack from Iraqi missiles.

* Russia supplied Iraq with new jammers that would interfere with global-positioning-system devices on U.S. smart bombs.

The book, quoting John Shaw, a deputy undersecretary for defense, also charges that France had a secret arrangement with Saddam three years before the war to help the Butcher of Baghdad flee to Mauritania aboard an Airbus 300 jetliner.

In addition, the book cites government documents indicating that nuclear programs in rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Libya have also received help from French, Russian, Chinese and German companies.

Is there anyone out there who really didnt see this coming? Is there really any good argument as to why we continually need to be worried about what these countries think about the decision to invade Iraq? The rhetoric about "losing" the support of "rest of the world" is the other nations politically motivated attempts to sway our politicians into serving their own interests. Or even to sway the people in this country to vote for politicians more likely to bow to those interests. IF the allegations in this article prove to be true (Im not making that assumption yet) where does the "We have pissed the world off because we are greedy evil tyrants etc" argument go? Does it still have a leg to stand on?

It seems to me either people use the argument as a red herring to drum up support for the anti-war movement, or they have genuinely bought the bullshit from these other countries who hope the US takes the course of action which makes them the most money (ie get out of iraq so we can sell them more weapons illegally).

Again Im going to mention that as far as I know this hasnt been fully investigated etc so I wouldnt bet my life that all these allegations are true. If I were a betting man though (which I am) I would definately bet the greater portion of my life savings that they are.

Mephisto2 · 09-09-2004, 09:35 PM

Well, when American companies sell weapons illegally, that doesn't always mean "America sells arms", if you know what I mean.

I'm quite certain some Russian and French arms corporations sold weapons illegally. But that doesn't mean it was national policy. There have been many examples of companies putting profit over people.

When it comes to China however, I wouldn't be surprised if they sold arms with tacit state support.

Therefore, I'm not so sure if this is anything new. Did French, Russian and Chinese arms manufacturers break international sanctions? I should think so.
Was it the national policy of those countries? Definitely not, with a possible exception of China playing both sides.
Have American firms, and indeed the American administration, sold arms illegally to countries it shouldn't? I think we all know the answer to that one now, don't we?

Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham · 09-09-2004, 09:43 PM

What about Halliburton, GE and Conoco (among probable others) past and present dealings with Iran?

irateplatypus · 09-10-2004, 10:00 AM

what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first.

a clear double standard.

Ustwo · 09-10-2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first.

a clear double standard.

Amazing isn't it?

You would think they were blind, baised, and only worried about their philosophy winning reguardless of the truth.

Strange Famous · 09-10-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first.

a clear double standard.

I disagree.. the two cases are different.

Haliburton are accused of profiteering and being given government contracts because the vice president of America is on their board - this is an allegation of corruption.

The arms dealers are accused of selling arms to a country that the UN forbids arm sales too.... we might add that America has gone against the UN many times, as have many other states... in fact, disobeying the UN seems to be actually very popular with the American right.

As for arms dealers... as far as I can see, you either sell arms or you dont, there isnt much room for morality... everything you sell is going to be used to try and kill someone or threaten it. UK companies also tried to sell arms to Iraq while this was outlawed by the UN, and they were allegedly helped by three middle ranking ministers of the Conservative government (see the Scott Report), so you can add the UK to that list

As for the arms dealers... it is an allegation of being arms dealers, the logic of arms dealership... selling something where it is banned is a different offence to using government power for the furtherment of the interests of a favoured corporation though.

filtherton · 09-10-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I disagree.. the two cases are different.

Haliburton are accused of profiteering and being given government contracts because the vice president of America is on their board - this is an allegation of corruption.

The arms dealers are accused of selling arms to a country that the UN forbids arm sales too.... we might add that America has gone against the UN many times, as have many other states... in fact, disobeying the UN seems to be actually very popular with the American right.

As for arms dealers... as far as I can see, you either sell arms or you dont, there isnt much room for morality... everything you sell is going to be used to try and kill someone or threaten it. UK companies also tried to sell arms to Iraq while this was outlawed by the UN, and they were allegedly helped by three middle ranking ministers of the Conservative government (see the Scott Report), so you can add the UK to that list

As for the arms dealers... it is an allegation of being arms dealers, the logic of arms dealership... selling something where it is banned is a different offence to using government power for the furtherment of the interests of a favoured corporation though.

I agree. I think you have to squint pretty hard to see only similarities between selling weapons to an ally's enemy and milking your country's taxpayers for millions of dollars.

In any case, i don't think arms dealing is good under any circumstances. That being said, how are the actions of these companies any different than america's dealing of arms to a genocidal indonesia during their little east timorese jaunt? Does that bother you too?

The point is that for nearly any action undertaken by another nation that you decide to get all up-in-arms about america is also guilty of it in some form or another.

irateplatypus · 09-10-2004, 10:27 AM

strange famous,

well put, you stated your case very well i thought. but, i think that you're limiting the allegations against haliburton and like companies to a minority of what has actually been charged through the years. if the allegations were limited to the ones presented in your post i would see the distinction more clearly.

just look above at opie's post. his charge isn't that the administration was involved illegally, it's that the business was done at all. in addition, i don't see the matter as being purely associated with the "Country A"-->UN-->"Country B" conduit. if arms were sold to a country that had a major war with the US and its allies 10 years earlier and was still attacking aircraft policing it's imposed neutral zones... then the situation takes on new shape. if arms were dealt by the french to the iraqis, then we must allow for the possibility of US soldiers being killed by weapons bought from US allies in a very narrow span of time. a totally different animal politically and diplomatically.

jb2000 · 09-10-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first.

a clear double standard.

Well, for starters, I do have a double-standard when it comes to America. I hold my country to a higher standard, to be sure. That said, I don't think I've seen anyone coming out saying that it was all good for these arms shipments to take place. Truth be told, American companies are unfortunately also very active in the 'grey-market' arms trade.

On the double-standard issue though, I don't think it goes very far. Many of these same folks who condemn the dastardly foreigners for supplying our enemies hold guys like Ollie North in the highest of esteem, practically lionized for his role in Iran-Contra (or did we forget about that one).

Illegal arms trade is a reality that derives from a nation-state system in which violence is accepted as a means of dispute-resolution, and in which force still ultimately determines the course of events (current reality...not inevitable reality). To be sure, all arms-producers use arms shipments, legal, quasi-legal, or illegal, as an extension of foreign policy. Until this international regime is altered, we can't expect such events to stop.

This is not a condonement of such transfers. I want them stopped, whether from America, France, Russia, N.Korea, or a Falujah workshop. But I do hold America to the highest standard of all, for two reasons. One, she's my country, I'm damn proud of her, and I want her to be a leader in the movement. Two, I actually have some ability to affect her behavior through participation in the political process.

French and other arms being sold to Iraq was unfortunate, and I don't want those who authorized such shipments to sleep well. The gun trade to Africa is just as unfortunate. The unwillingness of the current Administration to take a lead in halting such unnecessary transfers is unacceptable. To not participate in Small Arms and Land Mines limiting protocals, under the idea that it is not fair to cut American firms out of the profits of these trades, is unfathomable.

America is right to complain about the foreign suppliers of Sadaam's 1990's military. But if she really wants to have an effect on the arms trade, and not just a good cry, then she needs to lead by example!

roachboy · 09-10-2004, 01:08 PM

there is nothing interesting in this. strangefamous said it quite well--there is a ton of documentation available about the international arms market and the willingness of manufacturers to sell anything to anyone--including, prominently, american-based firms--which is not surprising given that the americans are the world largest arms exporter by something like a factor of 10. you might think about the linkage between this arms market and "terrorism" and about how it is only really the arms manufacturers who benefit from the circle implied by linking the two.

why is it surprising that american, german, french, chinese, czech etc etc etc, (products of all the major players in the arms trade) arms are being used by both sides to kill each other in iraq--not to mention almost any other bloody conflict abroad in the world?

obviously, for political advantage, in "revealing" this obvious fact in the context of iraq, it would be important to omit the american involvement in selling weapons before the war---but there is evidence to refute this and its story well-known.....

the international arms trade is the finest example of capitalism in action. nothing matters but cash.
if you support unlimited gun ownership, you have no choice but to embrace all the consequences of arms trafficking, international and domestic.
the massacres enabled by the international arms trade is the finest demonstration of the way in which gun ownership sets you free.

OpieCunningham · 09-10-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first.

a clear double standard.

I don't support French, Russian, German or any other country's businesses selling weapons to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. I never have.

But I can't say I've seen anything but excuses and support for Halliburton et. al. from conservatives. Yet those same conservatives have been pointing to the French, German and Russian dealings (while ignoring the U.S. dealings) with Iraq as some kind of proof of the sole reason they wouldn't join the Coalition of the Willing.

So who has the double standard?

sprocket · 09-10-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there is nothing interesting in this. strangefamous said it quite well--there is a ton of documentation available about the international arms market and the willingness of manufacturers to sell anything to anyone--including, prominently, american-based firms--which is not surprising given that the americans are the world largest arms exporter by something like a factor of 10. you might think about the linkage between this arms market and "terrorism" and about how it is only really the arms manufacturers who benefit from the circle implied by linking the two.

why is it surprising that american, german, french, chinese, czech etc etc etc, (products of all the major players in the arms trade) arms are being used by both sides to kill each other in iraq--not to mention almost any other bloody conflict abroad in the world?

obviously, for political advantage, in "revealing" this obvious fact in the context of iraq, it would be important to omit the american involvement in selling weapons before the war---but there is evidence to refute this and its story well-known.....

the international arms trade is the finest example of capitalism in action. nothing matters but cash.
if you support unlimited gun ownership, you have no choice but to embrace all the consequences of arms trafficking, international and domestic.
the massacres enabled by the international arms trade is the finest demonstration of the way in which gun ownership sets you free.

Actually there is something interesting in this in the context of my original post (at least to me). Like I mentioned, one of the key arguments against the war seems to be the appeasement of other nations wishes. Its pretty clear that they opposed the war for their own economical interests (wich in this case appear to undermine our national security). If it would have made them more money to support the war, they would have. The loss of life or oppressiveness of what we have done (if you want to see it that way) is really not why they opposed the war. My point is not wether halliburton or any of the other scandals is worse or just as bad as this.. its that I dont think the argument can be made by any rational person that we need to somehow pull out of Iraq or do this or that to appease these countries because they are *gasp* mad at us. They only pretend to be mad for their own gain and is an attempt to sway our politics in their favor.

If you have other great reasons for disagreeing with the war, fine. Im just trying to paint this particular argument as bogus.

OpieCunningham · 09-10-2004, 06:51 PM

I don't think there are many, if any, people saying we shouldn't have gone to war because France didn't want us to. I think they're saying we shouldn't have gone to war because there was no good cause, and look France/Germany/Russia/most of the world agrees!

That part of their agreement lies in the fact that they had business to lose by removing Saddam is probably accurate. But it could also be said that part of the reason that the U.S. went to war is because it had much business to gain by removing Saddam.

Dragonlich · 09-10-2004, 09:26 PM

Just a quickie:
- The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. sold weapons to Iraq, while it was under UN sanctions, and even sold weapons when Iraq was in a war with the US (for some countries this'd be an ally). End result: more dead Iraqis and Americans.
- The Halliburton case mentioned is about arms sales to Iran, which does not have UN sanctions (only US sanctions), and isn't at war with anyone. End result: not a lot.

How exactly are these two situations comparable?

OpieCunningham · 09-10-2004, 10:12 PM

Well, firstly, these are allegations, not facts, coming from a journalist who works for the Washington Times - the newspaper owned by a guy called Moon that truly believes he is the Messiah and has saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin from eternal damnation and has very likely sold nuclear missle-capable submarines to North Korea. So there are a number of aspects that would need some rather solid 3rd party corraboration, such as:
- Were any French/German/Russian weapons used as stated?
- If so, did France/Germany/Russia provide those weapons or did they come from another source outside their control?
- When were the weapons sold to the Ba'athists?

Secondly, Halliburton is not selling arms to Iran. They are providing oil-field services for Iran through their offshore subsidiary (Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd.) in the Cayman Islands - which has no employees and has all their mail forwarded to their Texas headquarters. It is illegal in the U.S. for a U.S. company to do business with a number of countries, including Iran. Loop holes are wonderful things. The U.S. is actively engaged in attempting to prevent the Iranians from acquiring the means of developing nuclear weapons. End result: rather significant.

Dragonlich · 09-11-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Secondly, Halliburton is not selling arms to Iran. They are providing oil-field services for Iran through their offshore subsidiary (Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd.) in the Cayman Islands - which has no employees and has all their mail forwarded to their Texas headquarters. It is illegal in the U.S. for a U.S. company to do business with a number of countries, including Iran. Loop holes are wonderful things. The U.S. is actively engaged in attempting to prevent the Iranians from acquiring the means of developing nuclear weapons. End result: rather significant.

How exactly does oil-field services help in developing nuclear weapons? It might result in more cash for the Iranians, but they would have gotten that anyway if one of many other companies did this work. End result: not that significant.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 01:59 AM

It doesn't matter if you provide oil-field service or sell them a subscription to TIME magazine. You're supporting an enemy of the U.S. and directly opposing the laws of the U.S.

The idea of sanctions and embargoes is to prevent a country from maintaining economic stability. If you want the U.N. to implement them, it's not going to help your case if you don't implement them yourself.

Pacifier · 09-11-2004, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Just a quickie:
- The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. sold weapons to Iraq, while it was under UN sanctions, and even sold weapons when Iraq was in a war with the US (for some countries this'd be an ally). End result: more dead Iraqis and Americans.
- The Halliburton case mentioned is about arms sales to Iran, which does not have UN sanctions (only US sanctions), and isn't at war with anyone. End result: not a lot.

How exactly are these two situations comparable?

As someone said already The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. didn't sold weapons to the Iraq, if so it were single companys similar to Halliburton. hose deals were not allowed by the goverments (at least in Germany and France) if those accusations are true the managers of those companys are in really seep trouble.

09-10-2004, 10:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	what gets me is that some posters have such venom for even the appearance of impropriety concerning GE and Haliburton (which is, i think, well placed if the charges are true)... but play it low when foreign countries are caught in the same boat. if one instance is bad... surely an equivalent one should be condemned just as harshly. it's intellectually dishonest to condemn one, yet give another a pass on the grounds that it is just like the first. a clear double standard. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-10-2004, 10:27 AM	#8 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	strange famous, well put, you stated your case very well i thought. but, i think that you're limiting the allegations against haliburton and like companies to a minority of what has actually been charged through the years. if the allegations were limited to the ones presented in your post i would see the distinction more clearly. just look above at opie's post. his charge isn't that the administration was involved illegally, it's that the business was done at all. in addition, i don't see the matter as being purely associated with the "Country A"-->UN-->"Country B" conduit. if arms were sold to a country that had a major war with the US and its allies 10 years earlier and was still attacking aircraft policing it's imposed neutral zones... then the situation takes on new shape. if arms were dealt by the french to the iraqis, then we must allow for the possibility of US soldiers being killed by weapons bought from US allies in a very narrow span of time. a totally different animal politically and diplomatically. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-10-2004, 01:08 PM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there is nothing interesting in this. strangefamous said it quite well--there is a ton of documentation available about the international arms market and the willingness of manufacturers to sell anything to anyone--including, prominently, american-based firms--which is not surprising given that the americans are the world largest arms exporter by something like a factor of 10. you might think about the linkage between this arms market and "terrorism" and about how it is only really the arms manufacturers who benefit from the circle implied by linking the two. why is it surprising that american, german, french, chinese, czech etc etc etc, (products of all the major players in the arms trade) arms are being used by both sides to kill each other in iraq--not to mention almost any other bloody conflict abroad in the world? obviously, for political advantage, in "revealing" this obvious fact in the context of iraq, it would be important to omit the american involvement in selling weapons before the war---but there is evidence to refute this and its story well-known..... the international arms trade is the finest example of capitalism in action. nothing matters but cash. if you support unlimited gun ownership, you have no choice but to embrace all the consequences of arms trafficking, international and domestic. the massacres enabled by the international arms trade is the finest demonstration of the way in which gun ownership sets you free. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-09-2004, 09:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well, when American companies sell weapons illegally, that doesn't always mean "America sells arms", if you know what I mean. I'm quite certain some Russian and French arms corporations sold weapons illegally. But that doesn't mean it was national policy. There have been many examples of companies putting profit over people. When it comes to China however, I wouldn't be surprised if they sold arms with tacit state support. Therefore, I'm not so sure if this is anything new. Did French, Russian and Chinese arms manufacturers break international sanctions? I should think so. Was it the national policy of those countries? Definitely not, with a possible exception of China playing both sides. Have American firms, and indeed the American administration, sold arms illegally to countries it shouldn't? I think we all know the answer to that one now, don't we? Mr Mephisto

09-09-2004, 09:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	What about Halliburton, GE and Conoco (among probable others) past and present dealings with Iran?

09-10-2004, 06:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	I don't think there are many, if any, people saying we shouldn't have gone to war because France didn't want us to. I think they're saying we shouldn't have gone to war because there was no good cause, and look France/Germany/Russia/most of the world agrees! That part of their agreement lies in the fact that they had business to lose by removing Saddam is probably accurate. But it could also be said that part of the reason that the U.S. went to war is because it had much business to gain by removing Saddam.

09-10-2004, 09:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Just a quickie: - The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. sold weapons to Iraq, while it was under UN sanctions, and even sold weapons when Iraq was in a war with the US (for some countries this'd be an ally). End result: more dead Iraqis and Americans. - The Halliburton case mentioned is about arms sales to Iran, which does not have UN sanctions (only US sanctions), and isn't at war with anyone. End result: not a lot. How exactly are these two situations comparable?

09-10-2004, 10:12 PM	#15 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	Well, firstly, these are allegations, not facts, coming from a journalist who works for the Washington Times - the newspaper owned by a guy called Moon that truly believes he is the Messiah and has saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin from eternal damnation and has very likely sold nuclear missle-capable submarines to North Korea. So there are a number of aspects that would need some rather solid 3rd party corraboration, such as: - Were any French/German/Russian weapons used as stated? - If so, did France/Germany/Russia provide those weapons or did they come from another source outside their control? - When were the weapons sold to the Ba'athists? Secondly, Halliburton is not selling arms to Iran. They are providing oil-field services for Iran through their offshore subsidiary (Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd.) in the Cayman Islands - which has no employees and has all their mail forwarded to their Texas headquarters. It is illegal in the U.S. for a U.S. company to do business with a number of countries, including Iran. Loop holes are wonderful things. The U.S. is actively engaged in attempting to prevent the Iranians from acquiring the means of developing nuclear weapons. End result: rather significant.

09-11-2004, 01:59 AM	#17 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	It doesn't matter if you provide oil-field service or sell them a subscription to TIME magazine. You're supporting an enemy of the U.S. and directly opposing the laws of the U.S. The idea of sanctions and embargoes is to prevent a country from maintaining economic stability. If you want the U.N. to implement them, it's not going to help your case if you don't implement them yourself.