lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-23-2004, 12:15 AM   #1
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam

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The scam involved padded contracts, sending fewer goods than were paid for, and sending "out-of-date or unfit food" in exchange for Iraqi oil.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.
rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2004, 08:23 AM   #2
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Re: Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam

Quote:
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.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2004, 01:58 PM   #3
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
wonder how much us companies funneled into the republican party to get their war and their contracts?

just kidding!!



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2004, 07:03 PM   #4
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
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.

Quote:
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.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2004, 09:45 PM   #5
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
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:
Quote:
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.
rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 05:28 AM   #6
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
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.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 06:02 PM   #7
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.


Last edited by MennoniteHobbit; 04-24-2004 at 09:42 PM.
MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 08:25 PM   #8
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
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.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 09:46 PM   #9
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 10:56 PM   #10
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
[B]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.

Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
[B]No matter what, I believe that the U.S. must look dignified, or at least try to.
Being arrogant offers little toward looking dignified.

Quote:
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.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2004, 11:03 PM   #11
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-25-2004, 05:53 AM   #12
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-25-2004, 03:29 PM   #13
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
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?

Quote:
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


Last edited by MennoniteHobbit; 04-25-2004 at 05:09 PM.
MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-25-2004, 08:20 PM   #14
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-26-2004, 12:47 AM   #15
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
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.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-26-2004, 01:41 AM   #16
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-26-2004, 01:44 AM   #17
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-26-2004, 08:02 AM   #18
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
But how has the US "wronged or slighted" the UN?
Blackmailing members of the Security Counsil seems like a slight to me.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-27-2004, 08:36 PM   #19
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
Blackmailing members of the Security Counsil seems like a slight to me.
Give an example please.

Quote:
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.



Quote:
So saving face is more important than saving troops?
How about both.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-28-2004, 01:15 PM   #20
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
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?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-28-2004, 01:24 PM   #21
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-28-2004, 05:05 PM   #22
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Last edited by MennoniteHobbit; 04-28-2004 at 05:22 PM.
MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-29-2004, 07:35 AM   #23
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
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.

Quote:
The cost of saving people: others and ourselves. People just don't get it.
Do you really believe that?

Quote:
It may sound funny to you, but that is stupid.
It would be if it wasn't true... Now it's just sad.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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]

Quote:
try to overpower a country just so that it will look good..
Hey, who's sending troops into sovereign countries here?

Quote:
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.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-29-2004, 04:40 PM   #24
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Do you really believe that?
Well that is what happened at this occurrence, with Iraq.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-29-2004, 06:30 PM   #25
Breton
Ta deg en bolle
 
Breton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,398
Quote:
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?


Penger er for kapitalister
kun papir for meg
så lenge jeg har penger til tippefrister
kan gjerne karl johan bli motorvei for meg


Postgirobygget, "Sløv uten dop"
Breton is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-30-2004, 08:18 AM   #26
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
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.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-30-2004, 06:12 PM   #27
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2004, 11:40 AM   #28
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2004, 07:59 PM   #29
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-02-2004, 01:55 PM   #30
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
Well that is what happened at this occurrence, with Iraq.
That can be debated.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-02-2004, 04:48 PM   #31
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2004, 08:02 AM   #32
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2004, 04:01 PM   #33
Breton
Ta deg en bolle
 
Breton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,398
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Penger er for kapitalister
kun papir for meg
så lenge jeg har penger til tippefrister
kan gjerne karl johan bli motorvei for meg


Postgirobygget, "Sløv uten dop"
Breton is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2004, 07:40 PM   #34
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2004, 12:16 AM   #35
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
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?


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2004, 12:24 AM   #36
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
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.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2004, 06:31 AM   #37
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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??



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2004, 08:04 AM   #38
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 05-06-2004 at 08:33 AM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program a Scam

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.