Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam

[rccar328]

Why this isn't all over the front-pages I don't know...except maybe there's a liberal bias in the media, but that couldn't be it...

 

UN officials 'covered up Saddam theft of billions in aid for Iraqis'

 

Aparently, Saddam was funnelling money to people in exchange for vocal opposition to the war. Aparently, those involved included:

the office of Russian President Vladimir Putin

Charles Pasqua, the former French interior minister

Jean-Bernard Merimee, the former French ambassador to the UN

the Indian Congress Party

President Megawati Sukarnoputri, of Indonesia

the Palestinian Liberation Organisation

and a prominent British MP (member of Parliament)

 

The scam involved padded contracts, sending fewer goods than were paid for, and sending "out-of-date or unfit food" in exchange for Iraqi oil.

 

The UN has approved an independant investigation of the program.

 

So now, I guess we know what "No war for oil" really means:

Give me oil, and I won't give you war.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Why this isn't all over the front-pages I don't know...except maybe there's a liberal bias in the media, but that couldn't be it... .

 

It isn't "all over the media" because the Bush Admin probably doesn't want to totally alienate the United Nations, which it wants/needs to help pull it's fat from the fire in Iraq.... June 21st is coming fast.

 

But the newest excuse for not turning over power will likely rest on the fact that the militant groups refuse to turn over arms (completely).

 

I don't know about the "liberal bias" excuse... American media is decidedly biased to one thing: ratings. But NPR has covered the UN Oil For Food scandal quite well. I heard at least four feature stories and in the last two days and it was covered when it first broke weeks (months now?) ago.

[toms]

wonder how much us companies funneled into the republican party to get their war and their contracts?

 

just kidding!!

[ShadowTemplar]

Notice that the sources cited all come from the temporary administration/exile opposition, who all had (have) a very real interest in the war, and have repeatedly proven to be... imaginative in their explanation of the threat Hussein posed. Then again, I'm not saying that the UN is free of corruption. It wouldn't surprise me the least if some Western politicians scammed the program... And nor would it surprise me the least if Putin was found to be one of them. He's as big a criminal as dubya.

 

wonder how much us companies funneled into the republican party to get their war and their contracts?

 

just kidding!!

 

You know, I think that you have hit right on the spot. Corporate interest is the name of that game.

[rccar328]

But if it was just about corporate interests, the story would be insignificant.

 

Here's a quote from a NY Post article on the story:

the list's publication "raises questions why there are people on the record as having received oil contracts who are not actually oil traders.

This was not just about corporations skimming money off of the oil-for-food program. It's about the corruption of the security council.

 

 

And John Kerry wants to hand US military control over these people.

 

It's pathetic.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

And John Kerry wants to hand US military control over these people.

 

And you have a source with empirical data to support that assumption?

 

It seems more likely that Bush is about to turn Iraq over to the terrorists... which is what would happen if the June 12th turn over happens and the U.S. pulls out significant numbers of troops.

 

Face it, we screwed it up. We went in with too few troops. If you look at the threads of over a year ago, I predicted the problems we'd face in Bagdad... we went in there with too few troops to handle the situation and now we're trying to fight insurgents/guerillas in a conventional manner.

 

Now we're stuck with a bad situation and the Bush Admin needs the UN to bail it out... and you're pissin' up a rope over Kerry wanting to involve the UN? I seriously doubt we'll see any command positions offered to UN staff. If control over specific military forces is necessary to manage a "joint task force" then this will not be a new concept. NATO operated in this capacity on many occasions and the US was right to allow it.

 

I think it's time for those afraid of change and progress (conservatives) to get over themselves... US military and government officials aren't the only competent people in the world... For all it's faults and probable corruptions, there remain many competant people in the United Nations, probably far more than in the Bush administration, which has consistently deceived the American public.

[MennoniteHobbit]

It seems more likely that Bush is about to turn Iraq over to the terrorists... which is what would happen if the June 12th turn over happens and the U.S. pulls out significant numbers of troops.

 

Skinwalker, do you want the U.S. to hand over power to the Iraqis on June 12th (or whenever the date is), or do you want to delay it?

 

John Kerry wants us to get out of Iraq ASAP, but he also says that the set date for power-hand over to the Iraqis is too early.

[SkinWalker]

What I want and what is feasible with the Bush legacy are two different things.

 

I want to have our people out of a bad situation.

 

Unfortunately, the Bush admin has assured that there is no easy answer to the problem of Iraq.

 

If we pull out ASAP, we abandon a situation we created: a country without government, security and infrastructure.

 

If we stay and see it through, we must either: 1) commit our troops to continued stay in an extremely risky environment along with challenging their overall combat effectiveness with the continued hardship and strain on morale; 2) institute a draft, and train the new recruits as replacements (which will take a minimum of 6 months, leaving option 1) as the working solution for at least another 8 months); 2) involve international forces, such as that which could be provided by United Nations involvement to help facilitate the rebuilding effort.

 

John Kerry is absolutly right: we should get out as soon as possible for many reasons (taxpayers are footing the bill, servicemen are dying, continued involvement is perpetuating the insurgencies, etc.). But we cannot just up and leave... we screwed it up, it's our responsibility to fix it.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What I want and what is feasible with the Bush legacy are two different things.

 

I want to have our people out of a bad situation.

 

Unfortunately, the Bush admin has assured that there is no easy answer to the problem of Iraq.

 

If we pull out ASAP, we abandon a situation we created: a country without government, security and infrastructure.

 

If we stay and see it through, we must either: 1) commit our troops to continued stay in an extremely risky environment along with challenging their overall combat effectiveness with the continued hardship and strain on morale; 2) institute a draft, and train the new recruits as replacements (which will take a minimum of 6 months, leaving option 1) as the working solution for at least another 8 months); 2) involve international forces, such as that which could be provided by United Nations involvement to help facilitate the rebuilding effort.

 

I completely agree, but if we involve other national forces, I wouldn't want the U.S. to look like we're begging, on our knees, for help. No matter what, I believe that the U.S. must look dignified, or at least try to. I also wouldn't want the U.S. to have to "explain ourselves and justify our actions" to other nations.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I completely agree, but if we involve other national forces, I wouldn't want the U.S. to look like we're begging, on our knees, for help.

 

Not every U.S. citizen is arrogant or egotistical. Some understand the value of humility and admitting mistakes. If we need help then we need help.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

No matter what, I believe that the U.S. must look dignified, or at least try to.

 

Being arrogant offers little toward looking dignified.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I also wouldn't want the U.S. to have to "explain ourselves and justify our actions" to other nations.

 

If explanations are in order, then we should be the first to offer them. We would expect the same of other nations. If we are to consider ourselves a world leader, then we should act as a leader - by example.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Not every U.S. citizen is arrogant or egotistical. Some understand the value of humility and admitting mistakes. If we need help then we need help.

 

Thank you for calling me arrogant and egotistical. Or at least, others.

 

If explanations are in order, then we should be the first to offer them.

 

The type of explanations that we give to our parents when we have done something wrong right? Let's call the U.N. our mom or dad, and maybe even worship them.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Thank you for calling me arrogant and egotistical. Or at least, others.

 

I cannot be responsible for your inferrences, however, I did not call you arrogant or egotistical. I would have no empirical way of knowing that information through this medium.

 

However, refusing to own up to mistakes and make apologies or to seek assistance when it is logical and necessary to do so for the greater good is easily taken to be the traits of one who suffers from at least some arrogance or egotistical feelings.

 

Only you would know if those feelings belong to yourself or not. They do, however, appear to be hallmark traits of many in the Bush administration.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

The type of explanations that we give to our parents when we have done something wrong right?

 

No, sir. The type of explanations you offer to anyone that you have wronged or slighted. It matters not what their heirarchal position is to oneself, only that responsibilities are acknowledged, mistakes are recognized, and reconciliations with others is initiated.

 

To apply "parent/child" analogies to the United States and the United Nations would be inappropriate. There are distinct differences between individual parents/children and collective nations/governments.

[MennoniteHobbit]

As long as the U.S. can maintain dignity and still show humility as a world leader, I will be satisfied. I was simply using the parent/child analogy as how I thought the U.N. casted upon the U.S.

 

So, what we would "explain" would be why we went into Iraq, right? And that was wrong? We saved Iraqis from Hussein, or rather aided them away from the tyranny of Hussein. So, we explain why we didn't enlist the help of the U.N. or other nations in the first place?

 

I cannot be responsible for your inferrences, however, I did not call you arrogant or egotistical. I would have no empirical way of knowing that information through this medium.

 

Thank you

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

So, what we would "explain" would be why we went into Iraq, right?

 

No, what we would do is go to the U.N. and say "we're sorry, we really messed up here."

 

We've created a situation that we need help to solve, and I personally don't care if we come out of this with little or no dignity intact. We've already ruined most of our credibility with the world after our actions towards the UN and all our allies in general. Asking for help and admitting that we've made a mistake would actually go a lot further towards re-buildilng our credibility than would trying to look tough and refusing to ask for assitance when we need it.

[rccar328]

The type of explanations you offer to anyone that you have wronged or slighted.

But how has the US "wronged or slighted the UN? By enforcing resolutions that the UN didn't have the guts to enforce itself? If that's all it this is about, then instead of the US apologizing, the UN should be thanking us and offering their support. Instead, they've turned it into political games & corruption.

 

Whether we screwed up or not (and I do not believe that we did), we must keep our troops in Iraq and set up a stable government. Personally, I think that the June 12 date is much too soon to be pulling out...but I also believe that it has been set up that way due to political pressures by democrats and the fact that it's an election year.

 

We have an obligation to finish what we've started, and the overall goal is bigger than just reforming Iraq.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by rccar328

But how has the US "wronged or slighted the UN? By enforcing resolutions that the UN didn't have the guts to enforce itself? If that's all it this is about, then instead of the US apologizing, the UN should be thanking us and offering their support. Instead, they've turned it into political games & corruption.

 

Whether we screwed up or not (and I do not believe that we did), we must keep our troops in Iraq and set up a stable government. Personally, I think that the June 12 date is much too soon to be pulling out...but I also believe that it has been set up that way due to political pressures by democrats and the fact that it's an election year.

 

We have an obligation to finish what we've started, and the overall goal is bigger than just reforming Iraq.

 

Never do a job halfway if you can finish it completely.

 

Instead, they've [the U.N.] turned it into political games & corruption.

 

Does the U.N. want to gain power by thwarting the U.S., one of the most powerful nations in the world? I wonder what they have to gain. What they have to lose also.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Does the U.N. want to gain power by thwarting the U.S., one of the most powerful nations in the world? I wonder what they have to gain. What they have to lose also.

 

 

.....Conspiracy theorize much?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

But if it was just about corporate interests, the story would be insignificant.

 

But I was talking about dubya's administration.

 

I completely agree, but if we involve other national forces, I wouldn't want the U.S. to look like we're begging, on our knees, for help. No matter what, I believe that the U.S. must look dignified, or at least try to. I also wouldn't want the U.S. to have to "explain ourselves and justify our actions" to other nations.

 

So saving face is more important than saving troops? Damn, you remind me of the way China mishandled the SARS situation. Oh, and - adding insult to injury - you have no dignity left to save.

 

But how has the US "wronged or slighted" the UN?

 

Blackmailing members of the Security Counsil seems like a slight to me.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Blackmailing members of the Security Counsil seems like a slight to me.

 

Give an example please.

 

Oh, and - adding insult to injury - you have no dignity left to save.

 

The cost of saving people: others and ourselves. People just don't get it. Though I knew someone would say that.

 

 

 

So saving face is more important than saving troops?

 

How about both.

[toms]

preserve the US's reputation abroad? Why would you want to do that. It has a reputation for being insular, unfair, high-handed and a number of other things... i think you might find that asking for help would actually improve the US's reputation abroad.

 

Either that, or stop electing people with an IQ of about 10 to be president, then you might find that every country in the world didn't have comedy sketch shows and imressionists making fun of him all the time.

 

----

 

The UN may be corrupt, but as the UN is basically a collection of member governments it is not much of a surprise. Many governments are corrupt. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Putin was corrupt as he is basically a comunist leader with control of the media, same goes for Berlusconi and a number of other leaders. Same goes for bush IMHO.

 

However it is hardly a specific failing of the UN, rather a failing of the politicians involved. Having their influence and funding constantly undermined by the US doesn't exactly give them a lot of resorces or clout when it comes to trying to stop foreign governments from doing this sort of thing.

 

---------

 

THe US completely undermined the UN by saying "do what we want or we will do it anyway". Once they had said that in public it meant that whatever the UN did it would look weak. The US then presurised all the other countries into passing a loosely worded resolution (implying a more tightly worded one would be required before an attack) and then attacked anyway when they knew they couldn't blackmail people into the second resolution.

 

No one came out of that looking good.

 

--------

 

Something like the UN is only as strong as it's members make it. It has no standing armies or anything to enforce it's decisions, so it relies on the good faith of it's members. Unfortunatly most member states have such animosity to the US that they will vote against them just to annoy them, and the US never pays it's debts or takes any notice anyway.

 

---------

 

Why has the US made no move to get some ARABIC country forces on the ground in iraq?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by toms

Why has the US made no move to get some ARABIC country forces on the ground in iraq?

 

Because as soon as Arabic forces start helping us openly it damages the image of all Arabs being terrorists that our government has so nicely cultivated.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by toms

Either that, or stop electing people with an IQ of about 10 to be president, then you might find that every country in the world didn't have comedy sketch shows and imressionists making fun of him all the time.

 

It may sound funny to you, but that is stupid. Either way, most to practically all presidents get caricatured in cartoons for a fault, may that be little, or many. Everyone has something bad to say about everyone else, thus the reason for impressionists, an act of immature behavior that is still humorous sometimes.

 

The UN may be corrupt, but as the UN is basically a collection of member governments it is not much of a surprise. Many governments are corrupt. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Putin was corrupt as he is basically a comunist leader with control of the media, same goes for Berlusconi and a number of other leaders. Same goes for bush IMHO.

 

Bush... corrupt!?!?!!? Ok jump from calling Bush a liar, loser, sucker, and now say he's corrupted. You want corrupted? *points at Kerry* Last time I checked, defending the U.S. wasn't corrupted.

 

THe US completely undermined the UN by saying "do what we want or we will do it anyway". Once they had said that in public it meant that whatever the UN did it would look weak. The US then presurised all the other countries into passing a loosely worded resolution (implying a more tightly worded one would be required before an attack) and then attacked anyway when they knew they couldn't blackmail people into the second resolution.

 

No one came out of that looking good.

 

 

Are you talking about Security Resolution 441? Last time I checked everyone voted the same for it... unanimous.

 

Also, if this is an example of blackmail, it doesn't sound like it. Or, it may be a variant of blackmail that is either real or made up.

 

 

Something like the UN is only as strong as it's members make it. It has no standing armies or anything to enforce it's decisions, so it relies on the good faith of it's members. Unfortunatly most member states have such animosity to the US that they will vote against them just to annoy them, and the US never pays it's debts or takes any notice anyway.

 

If the U.S. dislikes the U.N., and after all we've supported them in the past and suddenly we must be ruled by the U.N., do you really think the U.S. should? This does not mean that the U.S. should have to "rule" to U.N. if you were thinking that. IMHO the U.S. shouldn't be too involved with the U.N. unless they shape up.

 

Of course, an organization is only as good as the people in it make it. But once the people in it start corrupting things and try to overpower a country just so that it will look good.. well, the others in it may choose not to support it anymore. If a country in the U.N. wants to do something, then they can do it if they want. If the other countries don't agree, if it involves only the challenging country, then that country has the right to dislodge from the organization.

 

Why has the US made no move to get some ARABIC country forces on the ground in iraq? [/b]

 

Because if anything happens to them, the U.S. might be blamed. Also, President Bush said himself that Al-Qaida are to be blamed, not Muslims or Arabics, just Al-Qaida and terrorists.

 

In a Dateline or 20/20 show, the anchors interviewed some Iraqis who were patriotic and said that they are thankful to the U.S., but they want to fight themselves as it's their country.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Give an example please.

 

Well, threatening to cut off trade treaties with 3rd-world countries who didn't support you in the SC seems like blackmail to me.

 

The cost of saving people: others and ourselves. People just don't get it.

 

Do you really believe that?

 

It may sound funny to you, but that is stupid.

 

It would be if it wasn't true... Now it's just sad.

 

Bush... corrupt!?!?!!? Ok jump from calling Bush a liar, loser, sucker, and now say he's corrupted. You want corrupted? *points at Kerry* Last time I checked, defending the U.S. wasn't corrupted.

 

You forgot 'fascist'. And I'd like you to back your accusations.

 

Dubya is undoubtedly corrupt. his entire administration is made up of advisors who hold office in large corporations, and his political dicisions benefit said corporations suspiciously - those who don't benefit the fascists in the Bible Belt, that is.

 

Are you talking about Security Resolution 441? Last time I checked everyone voted the same for it... unanimous.

 

It's 1441. And it was passed unanimously. Because everyone - including the US - knew that another resolution would be needed to provide casus belli.

 

If the U.S. dislikes the U.N., and after all we've supported them in the past and suddenly we must be ruled by the U.N., do you really think the U.S. should?

 

The US supported the UN?!? When? In what world?

 

IMHO the U.S. shouldn't be too involved with the U.N. unless they shape up.

 

So anyone who doesn't like the UN has every right to ignore it? Yeah, that's the way to get the respect of the rest of the world. [/stinging sarcasm]

 

try to overpower a country just so that it will look good..

 

Hey, who's sending troops into sovereign countries here?

 

If a country in the U.N. wants to do something, then they can do it if they want. If the other countries don't agree, if it involves only the challenging country, then that country has the right to dislodge from the organization.

 

But here it involves not only the challenging country. Iraq is a country too, and - whether or not you like the current/former regime - it has certain rights as a country.

[MennoniteHobbit]

So anyone who doesn't like the UN has every right to ignore it?

 

No, I never said that. It just means that the U.N. must take into consideration exactly why...

 

But here it involves not only the challenging country. Iraq is a country too, and - whether or not you like the current/former regime - it has certain rights as a country.

 

 

True, but before we went into Iraq, I thought that the Iraqis wanted us to help them... the ones brave enough to talk. I doubt we could have asked the Iraqis who weren't forced to say good things about Hussein.

 

Well, threatening to cut off trade treaties with 3rd-world countries who didn't support you in the SC seems like blackmail to me.

 

I was simply asking for an example... I did not know if it was a true or false accusation.

 

Do you really believe that?

 

Well that is what happened at this occurrence, with Iraq.

[Breton]

Originally posted by rccar328

But how has the US "wronged or slighted the UN? By enforcing resolutions that the UN didn't have the guts to enforce itself? If that's all it this is about, then instead of the US apologizing, the UN should be thanking us and offering their support. Instead, they've turned it into political games & corruption.

 

 

Rccar328, you need to remember that the UN had absolutly no reason to be afraid of Iraq and Saddam. See, the UN's job is to represent the major nations in the world and try to find the best possible solutions to world problems, including hostile dictators. The UN will go to war if it believes that is what's necessary. In the case of Iraq, the UN didn't find this necessary, and wanted to continue the weapon inspections (which had progress) and try to make Hussain to disarm all illegal weapons peacefully.

 

Defying the UN is defying the wishes of the world, as the UN is a democratic organization which represent all countries.

 

 

There's too much testosterone in world politics today. Political leaders need to be better at working together towards a better world for everyone. This includes accepting other's religions, views, cultures and opinions. Going on a crusade against the rest of the world, calling other politcal leaders evil and corrupt, and generally be hostile against others will only create hostality and distrust. In the end, we are all human beings who work towards what we believe is a better world, so why shouldn't we cooperate?