Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam

[toms]

indeed, the problem with democratic organisations is that you don't always like what they decide, but (in theory) you should respect their decision.

 

Most of the problems with the UN are hangovers from th cold war when Russia and all it's allies used to block US backed resolutions and visa-versa. With the cold war over it was looking like things might improve a lot, until the US undermined the whole organisation's standing.

 

Another problem is that not all members of the UN have spotless human rights records themselves, so many are unwilling to vote for anything that might set a precedent that could be used against them. (russia, china block human rights stuff, US blocks war crimes and environmental stuff).

 

However the only other option would be for countries we didn't agree with to be excluded (and then form their own groups, warsaw pact style) leaving us with an effective "us vs them" style world again.

 

The UN isn't prefect, just as the workings of the individual national governments involved aren't perfect (see thread on low voter turn out ;-) ), but either they take it out on each other in the voting chamber or on the battlefield, and i know which one i would prefer.

But for the UN to work as well as it can it needs it's high profile members (those powerful enough to ignore it if they wish) to abide by it's decisions even if they don't like them. Otherwise they might as well just all go home.

[rccar328]

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.

And they'd been trying for years to make Hussein disarm, through resolution after resolution after resolution, with no results but Hussein's little inspections games.

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

By "the wishes of the world" I'm assuming you're talking about France, Germany, and Russia (who were the countries opposed to the Iraq action). and two of them were taking kickbacks from Iraq in exchange for opposition to the war!

 

Now we know the true meaning of "no war for oil."

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

And they'd been trying for years to make Hussein disarm, through resolution after resolution after resolution, with no results but Hussein's little inspections games.

 

Indeed, he was playing a game of brinkmanship, but the inspections were preventing him from actually developing or testing weapons, and his hold over the country was loosening in a lot of areas. The inspectors themselves wanted a few more months, most other countries wanted to give it to them.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

By "the wishes of the world" I'm assuming you're talking about France, Germany, and Russia (who were the countries opposed to the Iraq action). and two of them were taking kickbacks from Iraq in exchange for opposition to the war!

 

Now we know the true meaning of "no war for oil."

 

NO!!!!

It means the wishes of the world, including france, germany, russia, the US and everyone else.

The way that france seems to have been portrayed as cowardly and corrupt due to it's position on the war is frankly rediculous. And this is coming from the uk, where we all hate the french just on principle!

UK firms have been implicated in sanctions busting/misuse just as much as those from the other countries you mentioned, but those were the actions of individuals and individual countries, bending the rules as much as they could to make a profit. That is capitalism for you. This had no bearing on how the UK voted in the UN, so i don't see why it should have affected the votes of those other countries.

Remember, the majority of public opinion in france and especially germany was against the war.

 

In the same way that individuals in the us senate might have interests and campaign contributors that affect their judgement, so might individuals in the UN and in the governments that represent the UN, but that doesn't mean the US president is entitled to say "you voted against my bill because you are corrupt so i'm going to ignore you and do it anyway" anymore than it allows the US to say the same thing!

[rccar328]

The way that france seems to have been portrayed as cowardly and corrupt due to it's position on the war is frankly rediculous.

The image of France as a coward may be incorrect, but the oil-for-food scandal confirms France's corruption.

but that doesn't mean the US president is entitled to say "you voted against my bill because you are corrupt so i'm going to ignore you and do it anyway" anymore than it allows the US to say the same thing!

Well, originally it was, "you aren't willing to do what is right (and what, according to UN resolutions, you should do), so I'm going to do it anyway." The corruption scandal just adds justification to US military actions. After all, if a rogue nation that had weapons of mass destruction and had programs to develop even more can buy off the UN security council, why the heck should we listen to them?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

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

 

Exactly why what? Please, you really lost me here.

 

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.

 

Ah, but that's not a valid reason to declare war. Protocol dictates that such things be decided upon by the UNSC. Besides, bombing humvees isn't exacly my idea of how to show ones gratitude...

 

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

 

That can be debated.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Exactly why what? Please, you really lost me here.

 

The U.N. needs to take into consideration exactly why a country is agreeing with them, and/or ignoring it.

 

That can be debated.

 

Most things can be debated.

 

Debating over whether we saved the Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny... debatable? Well, you could argue that the Iraqi security had indeed decreased, but this is due to the fact that the Iraqis haven't committed to control their own nation, and the U.S. is still in Iraq, trying to make the Iraqis as safe as possible, even though it is difficult.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

The U.N. needs to take into consideration exactly why a country is agreeing with them, and/or ignoring it.

 

It did take the US' disagreement into consideration. After all, the US can speak in the Assembly just like any other member... But that does not mean that the UN must agree with the US.

 

Debating over whether we saved the Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny... debatable? Well, you could argue that the Iraqi security had indeed decreased, but this is due to the fact that the Iraqis haven't committed to control their own nation, and the U.S. is still in Iraq, trying to make the Iraqis as safe as possible, even though it is difficult.

 

That is... one way of putting it... But - as you'd say on your side of the Pond - let's cut the crap: You practically handed over the country to the fundamentalists. That's not an improvement in my book.

[Breton]

Originally posted by rccar328

And they'd been trying for years to make Hussein disarm, through resolution after resolution after resolution, with no results but Hussein's little inspections games.

 

The inspections and chances of a peaceful solution everyone could agree on were progressing. It might have been quicker, but in a democratic organization like the UN you'll have to consider every voice, which undoubtetly slows things down. It would be most preferable if the entire world was gathered into a single nation, but that's a different debate.

 

As for US's actions in Iraq, they have unfortunatly only created conflict in the world rather than ending it. While it is true that the country of Iraq will now probably have a more democratic and preferable goverment, you'll have to see the big picture. Besides, the democratization of Iraq was a development that would eventually happen anyway, the US only quickened it.

 

By "the wishes of the world" I'm assuming you're talking about France, Germany, and Russia (who were the countries opposed to the Iraq action). and two of them were taking kickbacks from Iraq in exchange for opposition to the war!

 

I am talking about the wishes of the people in the entire globe. That's what matters to me, not the arrogant macho-attitude presented by certain goverments and organizations who have no intentions of finding a solution everyone can agree on (unlike me).

 

And I would ask you not to view an openly biased article only interested in creating conflict as ultimate proof for anything.

[rccar328]

I am talking about the wishes of the people in the entire globe. That's what matters to me, not the arrogant macho-attitude presented by certain goverments and organizations who have no intentions of finding a solution everyone can agree on

If "the people of the entire globe" had decided that Nazism was fine and dandy and the best way to go, would that make it right? Would it make Winston Churchill's opposition to Hitler's Nazi party wrong?

 

And as much as the leftists around here want to avoid/distract from this fact, Hussein did have Hitlerian aspirations.

 

The fact that the UN (whose Security Council members were being paid off to say so) disagreed with the US doesn't make the US's action in Iraq wrong.

 

As for US's actions in Iraq, they have unfortunatly only created conflict in the world rather than ending it. While it is true that the country of Iraq will now probably have a more democratic and preferable goverment, you'll have to see the big picture. Besides, the democratization of Iraq was a development that would eventually happen anyway, the US only quickened it.

Well, we could either have that conflict now, or we could wait around until Iraqi missiles carrying bio/chem/nuclear warheads were flying toward Israel or the US. Personally, I'd rather have the conflict now than let it sit for future generations to handle. It'd only make for a messier situation then.

 

And if the democratization of Iraq was an eventual certainty, what's wrong with hastening the process? After all, Saddam's sons were even worse than he was (just look at how they went out). Should we have waited for Saddam to die and his sons to take over?

You practically handed over the country to the fundamentalists.

Since when? Our troops are over there right now fighting the fundamentalists. I don't know what kind of lies you've been listening to, but this one almost makes me laugh.

It did take the US' disagreement into consideration. After all, the US can speak in the Assembly just like any other member... But that does not mean that the UN must agree with the US.

Well...you got this one right...the UN doesn't have to agree with the US. But at the very least, what the US was asking was for the UN to enforce its previously passed resolutions. If they're not willing to do that, I see no reason for the US to care whether the UN agrees - we've got to do what's right, with or without UN approval. And taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. It should've been done years ago.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

And as much as the leftists around here want to avoid/distract from this fact, Hussein did have Hitlerian aspirations.

 

What do you define as "Hitlerian aspirations?"

 

The forced relocation and/or eradication of one or more entire ethnic groups? Or the institution of absolute power to the Gestapo and the Schutzstaffel used to arbitrarily strip citizens of rights when suspected of being a national threat? Something else?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

the institution of absolute power to the Gestapo and the Schutzstaffel used to arbitrarily strip citizens of rights when suspected of being a national threat

replace Gestapo and Schutzstaffel with FBI and Secret Service, and you'll have the patriot act

 

anyway, If he means hitlerian desires such as hitlers desire to rule the world, I think everyone has it.

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

The image of France as a coward may be incorrect, but the oil-for-food scandal confirms France's corruption.

 

No more corrupt than any other nation there, including the US.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Well, originally it was, "you aren't willing to do what is right (and what, according to UN resolutions, you should do), so I'm going to do it anyway."

 

And so, the US gets to decide what is "right" and if the rest of the world disagrees then they are "wrong" and can be overruled????????!!!!!!!! That sounds very much like hitler's view of how the world should be run to me.

 

The US troops are now having to use just as much violence and intimidation to control the seperate groups of iraq as saddam used to do. Suddenly he doesn't seem such an evil dictator after all??

[ShadowTemplar]

While it is true that the country of Iraq will now probably have a more democratic and preferable goverment

 

And that's not even that likely. As it looks right now the US has screwed up completely, creating a situation where a fundamentalist takeover is threatening.

 

And as much as the leftists around here want to avoid/distract from this fact, Hussein did have Hitlerian aspirations.

 

That's a cheap shot. Hussein didn't have the power or charisma to see such ambitions through to the end. And I doubt that he even had such aspirations. Not every petty dictator or mass murderer can/will take his regime that far. Hussein was, AFAIK, more akin to a tribal leader, relying on his own tribe to suppress the other tribes in the immediate vicinity. While this is certainly disagreeable, it's far cry from world domination.

 

The fact that the UN (whose Security Council members were being paid off to say so) disagreed with the US doesn't make the US's action in Iraq wrong.

 

Even if we look at Iraq as an isolated case, the US fvcked up good and proper: You attacked a sovereign country that posed no threat to you, and then proceeded to practically hand it over to a bunch of religious fanatics. A really good job... If you want another Iran. The fact that you, by doing so, fractured the international community makes it even worse: At no time did Iraq pose a threat that justified gambling with the stability of the international community. Even if you had been right about Iraq, your actions would, on balance, have been outright stupid, not to mention morally despicable.

 

Well, we could either have that conflict now, or we could wait around until Iraqi missiles carrying bio/chem/nuclear warheads were flying toward Israel or the US.

 

Well Bagdahd shelling Tel Aviv shouldn't be your lookout. As for ICBMs there's no way in hell that Hussein would be able to procure them, much less be stupid enough to fire them.

 

Our troops are over there right now fighting the fundamentalists. I don't know what kind of lies you've been listening to, but this one almost makes me laugh.

 

You're fighting, true, but you're losing as well. There is no stable, nonfundamentalistic power structure to take over after Hussein. If you really are going to stay in Iraq until a such has formed, I'd wager that you're going to have to stay there for years, if not decades. You're going down. You'll go down fighting - undoubtedly - but you'll go down nonetheless.

 

Well...you got this one right...the UN doesn't have to agree with the US. But at the very least, what the US was asking was for the UN to enforce its previously passed resolutions. If they're not willing to do that, I see no reason for the US to care whether the UN agrees

 

You've got one thing wrong here: The UN is bloody well qualified to interpret its own damn resolutions! As it turned out, the UN didn't agree with the US on how to enforce their own resolutions.

 

And as for enforcing UN resolutions, the US hardly has an excellent track record (Israel anyone?).

 

And so, the US gets to decide what is "right" and if the rest of the world disagrees then they are "wrong" and can be overruled????????!!!!!!!! That sounds very much like hitler's view of how the world should be run to me.

 

Please, please, PLEASE, stop playing the 'Hitler' card. You are talking about one of the worst, totalitarian despots in the history of mankind (not counting Lenin, Stalin, and most of the Popes). That name is not one to be thrown about like idle banter.

 

The US troops are now having to use just as much violence and intimidation to control the seperate groups of iraq as saddam used to do. Suddenly he doesn't seem such an evil dictator after all??

 

The US troops aren't 'having' to do anything like that. The US fvcked up good and have only itself to thank for the current situation.