something nobody truly understands but everyone claims to be an expert

.

I like this one. I once read a famous quote:
Where facts are few, experts are many.
Donald R. Gannon

It is true and otherwise we wouldn't have such an interesting forum.

They are as incompetent and as corrupt.

I can't follow your conclusion on this one Bory. How do mean this? Do you mean incompetent in "they are too slow" or in some other way?

Originally Posted by Ted

They are as incompetent and as corrupt.
I can't follow your conclusion on this one Bory. How do mean this? Do you mean incompetent in "they are too slow" or in some other way?

Ted,
I think he means mired in bureaucracy, which slows anything down, and all that money tends to look pretty tempting, just as it does to normal politicians.

Is that close Bory?

Yeah sorry bout that. Bad choice of words. They are mired by Bureaucracy which not only slows down decision making, but often prevents them from making decisions at all on some topics. There are allot of issues they don't want to touch because they don't have the time.

Isn't that the weak point of any democracy? If you give people a vote they have a right to express this.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill

Deciding on issue take a lot of time and nowadays a lot of money. Then you have to make a choice what kind of democracy you'd like. You can regulate it and make it more centralized but..... well, you get my point. This is why the Romans had an option to make someone dictator. He had full powers to call the shots in time of need.

Isn't that the weak point of any democracy? If you give people a vote they have a right to express this.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill

Deciding on issue take a lot of time and nowadays a lot of money. Then you have to make a choice what kind of democracy you'd like. You can regulate it and make it more centralized but..... well, you get my point. This is why the Romans had an option to make someone dictator. He had full powers to call the shots in time of need.

India's foreign minister loses job over UN scandal

The Globe and Mail ^ | Monday, November 7, 2005

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

From the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ixworld.html

I took Saddam's cash, admits French envoy
By Francis Harris in Washington and David Rennie in Brussels


One of France's most distinguished diplomats has confessed to an investigating judge that he accepted oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, it emerged yesterday.

Jean-Bernard Mérimée is thought to be the first senior figure to admit his role in the oil-for-food scandal, a United Nations humanitarian aid scheme hijacked by Saddam to buy influence.

The Frenchman, who holds the title "ambassador for life", told authorities that he regretted taking payments amounting to $156,000 (then worth about £108,000) in 2002.

The money was used to renovate a holiday home he owned in southern Morocco. At the time, Mr Mérimée was a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general.

According to yesterday's Le Figaro, he told judge Philippe Courroye during an interview on Oct 12: "I should not have done what I did. I regret it."

But he also said that the payments were made in recompense for work he had done on Iraq's behalf. "All trouble is worth a wage," he is reported to have said.

No decisions have been announced about possible criminal charges against Mr Mérimée. He told the judge that he did not declare the income to the tax authorities, according to Le Figaro.

George Galloway, the Respect MP, has been accused of accepting similar payments by investigators working for the UN and the US Senate, but has denied that he accepted any benefit.

So far, the only top figure to have acknowledged that he was offered such oil allocations was Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN inspection team that uncovered some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s. Mr Ekeus, a famously strait-laced Swede, laughed off the offer.

Mr Mérimée, who was French ambassador to Australia, Italy, India and the UN, told the judge that after he was retired by the French foreign ministry he began working for a Moroccan bank, BMCE. It was owed large sums by Saddam's regime.

In 1999, he flew to Baghdad to discuss repayment and met Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, who offered to use oil-for-food money.

But that idea was swiftly rejected by BCME's president, who said any such deal would provoke American wrath.

Instead, the Frenchman said he decided to go into business "on his own behalf".

He added: "Tariq Aziz recognised the interest I had taken in Iraq, and the advice I had given him."

The ambassador said the French authorities had known of his every move.

France has been gravely embarrassed by oil-for-food allegations against senior figures, including Charles Pasqua, the former interior minister. He has denied receiving any benefit from the oil allocations issued in his name.

Inquiries have also found that French firms benefited disproportionately from oil-for-food contracts as part of an Iraqi policy to influence French votes on the UN Security Council.

Supporters of President George W Bush accuse France of putting its foreign policy up for sale and opposing the invasion of Iraq for commercial reasons. That has been fiercely denied in Paris.

Mr Mérimée did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Telegraph.

Supporters of President George W Bush accuse France of putting its foreign policy up for sale and opposing the invasion of Iraq for commercial reasons. That has been fiercely denied in Paris.

And antagonist of Bush accuse the US of putting it's foreign policy up for sale and proposing the invasion of Iraq for commercial reasons. That has been fiercly denied in Washington..... It's so easy as to write a story with any political color. Maybe I should become a journalist?

Originally Posted by Ted

And antagonist of Bush accuse the US of putting it's foreign policy up for sale and proposing the invasion of Iraq for commercial reasons. That has been fiercly denied in Washington..... It's so easy as to write a story with any political color. Maybe I should become a journalist?

Ted, what's the sense of this? Mutual charges don't mean one can't be guilty anyways. I think the US went into Iraq not for commercial reasons while I think France opposed the war for commercial reasons. Besides, you might think France didn't oppose it for commercial reasons and the US invaded for commercial reasons. Or you might think they both acted out of interest. What then?
I mean if the Pope accused Bin Laden of being evil, and Bin Laden accused the Pope of being a devil, are both of these necessarily true only for the fact that charges are mutual? Don't think so.

The point of this little excersise was that I see so many links to to conservative, pro-Bush sites and taken for true. I figured that taking the a sentence and just altering the word minimally would cause a maximal effect by some.
Why is it so easy to take a bogus site as a ligitemate source to support your story and when the other side can't. I just tried to point out the double standard of this and the failure to recognise this. I mean it is logical that it happens but just don't pretend that it doesn't.