Iraq and Sanctions

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/15/united-nations-lifts-iraq-nuclear-weapons-sanctions/

The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday lifted sanctions that prohibited Iraq from pursuing a civilian nuclear program, in a symbolic step to restore the country to the international standing it held before Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

"This is a big announcement. A new day for Iraq," a State Department official told FoxNews.com.

Iraq's constitution bars the country from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the country is a party to the main nuclear, chemical, biological and missile treaties. The resolution, adopted unanimously, also lifted sanctions that barred Iraq from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and long-range missiles.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/15/un.iraq.sanctions/index.html?iref=allsearch

(CNN) -- In what is being called a "milestone" for Iraq's future, the U.N. Security Council voted Wednesday to free the Baghdad government from sanctions that started during the Saddam Hussein era.

One resolution ends the oil-for-food program and another ends sanctions relating to weapons of mass destruction. A third ends the Iraqi Development Fund as of June 30.

The move is a major step for Iraq toward regaining full sovereignty and improving its standing in the international community.

The country will be able to have free and unrestricted international financial and trade dealings and to handle its own oil revenues. And it will be able to start a civilian nuclear power program if it is interested.

Will this come back to bite someone's ass in the future??

Edited December 15, 2010 by GostHacked

[M.Dancer]

Will this come back to bite someone's ass in the future??

nything is possible. Sanctions are never meant to be forever. Now Iraq'a universities can have nuclear reactors just like ours.

[bush_cheney2004]

Will this come back to bite someone's ass in the future??

Maybe...but I'll be dead by then!

[xul]

Maybe...but I'll be dead by then!

Scientifically, your gene will still alive if you have kids. Generally people who go into a war fight for their children rather than for themselves even if the soldiers are too young to have children so they are unaware what they are truly fighting for.(and that's why a right winger is easily to make himself a hawk....because of "family value" )

If one day some ET's intergalaxy ballistic missiles malfunctionally hit earth and blast every reproductive organ off every human being, you will see a more peaceful and war-fan-less world.

[Bonam]

Scientifically, your gene will still alive if you have kids.

While I understand the sentiment of your post, this statement isn't really that "scientifically" valid. All humans share roughly 99.9% of their DNA. That is, there is a difference of only ~0.1% between even the most different humans. So, whether you have children or not, as long as other humans are alive, 99.9% of your genes will live on. And, there are many other humans who would be much closer to you genetically, like 99.99% or higher. If you do have kids, well, your kids get half of their DNA from you and half from your partner, but which part comes from who is random, so your kids could still have only 99.9% of their DNA in common with you, or it could be higher. On average it'd probably be around 99.95%.

Should the motivation of your actions really depend on whether or not there exist individuals whose genetic similarity to yourself is 99.95% instead of 99.90%?

No, the real way you influence the future significantly through your children is by raising them and imparting upon them certain beliefs, personalities, knowledge, material possessions, familial relationships, ties and acquaintances, etc. That is where the continuity and "immortality" of having children comes from in any meaningful sense, not so much their genetic similarity to yourself. Genetic similarity which will in any case be modified through genetic engineering in the coming decades...

Edited December 17, 2010 by Bonam

[xul]

All humans share roughly 99.9% of their DNA. That is, there is a difference of only ~0.1% between even the most different humans. So, whether you have children or not, as long as other humans are alive, 99.9% of your genes will live on.

but we, and not only humans but cats, rats, birds, fish and trees as well, do fight or struggle our way just for let the 0.1% or 0.01% different genes survive. This is the way how the life forms on this planet evolve.

No, the real way you influence the future significantly through your children is by raising them and imparting upon them certain beliefs, personalities, knowledge, material possessions, familial relationships, ties and acquaintances, etc. That is where the continuity and "immortality" of having children comes from in any meaningful sense, not so much their genetic similarity to yourself. Genetic similarity which will in any case be modified through genetic engineering in the coming decades...

Exactly every mammal has the ability to pass its knowledge or skill to its offspring by the teach-and-learn way, but it isn't a denial that the genes or heredity is the vital factor of the evolution of any lifeforms on the earth. Today we are so different from monkeys not only because our ancestors invented A-bombs, LOL, stone axes and passed the knowledge from generation to generation but also becasue they struggled to pass down their 0.1% different genes from monkeys's ancestors--before that point human are supposed to share the same ancestry with monkeys's.

If you consider it with the time span of a hundred or a thousand years, you are right. But it seems like God used to consider things with the time span of a hundred thousand years when he created the world, so I'm not wrong. We haven't to keep the 0.1% different genes resided in our body alive but we are supposed to, and this is where the value of "family value" comes from---I suppose the conservative version of "family value" doesn't mean a family of two white Canadian homosexual parents with a black kid fostered from Somalia. If gene means nothing, what's wrong with such a "family"?

Edited December 19, 2010 by xul