why are we wasting time in iraq - Page 11




 
--
Boots
 
May 30th, 2005  
TMV
 
Quote:
So all 190 Member States of the United Nations (not counting the USA, with which there is 191) are profiting off the corruption of the oil-for-food program or similar scandal? I would like to see some kind of evidence for that claim.
First of all, I said either, not all. But here is that evidence you wanted (doesn't hurt to do your own research):

UN Member states that profited off of the Oil For Food Scam, including number of barrels they recieved. (a voucher for 1 million barrels would have translated into a quick profit of $250,000-300,000 on the high side and $50,000-100,000 on the low side all paid in cash.) Also, notice the correlation between the number of barrels and the stance of the country on whether or not to invade Iraq.

Algeria - 12 million barrels
Austria - 3 million barrels
Bangladesh - 43.2 million barrels
Bahrain - 7 million
Belarus - 32.2 million + 7 tons
Brazil - 14.5 million
Canada - 9.6 million
Bulgaria - 14 million
Chad - 3 million
China - 84.1 million
Cyprus - 31.2 million
Egypt - 68 million
FRANCE - 165.2 million
Hungary - 4.7 million
India - 9.5 million
Indonesia - 21 million
Ireland - 13 million
Italy - 56.5 + 4 tons
Jordan - 74 million
Kenya - 10.5 million
Lebanon -33 million
Libya - 6 million
Malaysia - 84.5 million
Myanmar Federation [Burma] - 5 million
Morocco - 17.4 million
Netherlands - 3 million
Nigeria - 19.7 million
Oman - 5 million
Palestine - 37 million
Pakistan - 22.5 tons
Panama - 11.5 million
Philippines - 3 million
Qatar - 24 million
Romania - 6.5 million
RUSSIA - 2.541 BILLION
Saudi Arabia - 5 million
Slovakia - 1 million
South Africa - 21 million
Spain - 36.1 million
Sudan - 8 million + 4 tons
Switzerland - 80 million
Syria - 84 million

Alright, I'm not totally done, I need to go to bed, but you get the picture. Yep, I guess you're right, there's no way dollar signs are getting in the way at the UN.

Also, these aren't total numbers, I'm pretty sure these numbers are only through 2000 or something like that.

And you know Scott Ritter? The former weapons inspector who went on a campaign saying how the US was lying and Iraq had gotten rid of all their weapons? Well, turns out he was on the payroll, he got at least $400,000 for his lies.

(All information from MEMRI: Middle East Media Research Institute)
June 1st, 2005  
FRO
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMV
Quote:
So all 190 Member States of the United Nations (not counting the USA, with which there is 191) are profiting off the corruption of the oil-for-food program or similar scandal? I would like to see some kind of evidence for that claim.
First of all, I said either, not all. But here is that evidence you wanted (doesn't hurt to do your own research)
I would like to point out that when one makes a claim, one should expect to be prepared to offer proof of that claim.

Second, do you then contend that every country not listed requires the protection of the UN?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMV
Alright, I'm not totally done, I need to go to bed, but you get the picture. Yep, I guess you're right, there's no way dollar signs are getting in the way at the UN.
You will note that individuals in receipt of vouchers existed in countries that supported the war in Iraq. Further, it was not governments but individuals who received vouchers, therefore the correlation between the receipt of vouchers and the actions of a government is tentative at best.

It is also important to note that the article from which the numbers are quoted is based on a previous article which included statements such as:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEMRI
First, MEMRI is not responsible for the accuracy of the details with regard to the names listed or the amount of oil granted.

Fourth, the issuing of vouchers by Saddam's regime may have served two primary purposes:

A: Payments in the form of bribes to individuals and organizations for their support of the regime.

B: Vouchers may have been issued to pay for goods and services that fell under U.N. Security Council sanctions and could not be financed under the "Oil for Food" program. Goods may have included military equipment or military parts, luxury automobiles that Saddam distributed as gifts inside and outside Iraq, and general luxury goods for the benefit of high-ranking officials in the Ba'ath party and government.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...=ia&ID=IA16004

I tend to be leary of statements like "the issuing of vouchers by Saddam's regime may have served . . ." Sure, they may have, but did they?

The numbers presented in the source material are also from the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada, and though the article discusses the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) and the Iraqi Governing Council, it does not state from what report the numbers come nor does it offer any corroborating evidence.

I'm not saying the numbers are wrong. I would say that one must consider one's sources. I'm also not saying that there was no corruption involved in the UN food-for-oil program. That's a given. I think it further points to the need for reform. Unless someone has a better solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMV
And you know Scott Ritter? The former weapons inspector who went on a campaign saying how the US was lying and Iraq had gotten rid of all their weapons? Well, turns out he was on the payroll, he got at least $400,000 for his lies.
Certainly possible. The question is, were they lies? Where are those WMDs, components for WMDs or manufacturing facilities for WMDs? I honestly don't think we can say one way or the other, but since the search has essentially been called off, I tend to wonder.

An interesting discussion--though an old one--regarding Ritter can be found here:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/

And for another interesting spin on the whole oil-for-food thing, here's another online journal, creatively titled the Online Journal:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...105madsen.html
June 21st, 2005  
rbmartiniv
 

Topic: Because of Bush' Lies


Why are we wasting time (and lives, I might add) in Iraq? The answer is easy. Because Bush mislead the American people (by lying to us) into a war we didn't need in order to appease his father. If he had concentrated on finding and capturing/killing Bin Laden instead of satisfying his ego we would probably have gotten Bin Laden by now.
--
Boots
June 22nd, 2005  
CSmaster
 
i think UN's achievements in humanilitirian missions can prove that UN is a very helpful orgnization...


I am sure U.S is not comfortable within UN where americans, the superpower citizens, have to listen to what the rest of world wants to say...


but plz dont discredit UN, and end up destroying it, while letting millions of ppl who depend on U.S aids suffer
July 22nd, 2005  
Chucklenuts
 

Topic: Wasting time in Iraq


Hopefully this will put the war for oil fallacy to rest - I seem to remember that by March of 1991 Coalition forces, primarily US in number and effective combat power, were standing on TOP of the southern edge of the Rhumaillia oil field in southern Iraq. Curious as to why we didn't drive north for a day more and seize the entire area at that time. We could have certainly made the argument that by doing so we would permanently cripple Bathhist finances. Oh wait I forgot to see this from the Noam Chomsky point of view - we complied with only fulfilling the UN resolutions to eject Saddam's forces out of Kuwait so we could establish a permanent presence in the Persian gulf, at enormous expense the American public (must keep the poor poor and the military industrial complex humming you know) and thereby set up our ability to take all of the oil at a later date! In the meanwhile the Govt. could use its lapdogs in the media to manufacture a consensus about the threat of terrorist states to keep the truly ignorant (ask an European) American public in a state of fear. Sorry we went to war to destroy Saddam and bend the will of other Middle-Eastern dictators, like Ghaddafi and Assad. BTW the reason why we had to finish the job is because we compiled with the limited war aims of the UN in 1991.
July 29th, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
Whatever the reasons for going in the US is going to have to stay for many years or Iraq will just fall apart.
July 29th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
To all those who think we should be fighting in North Korea rather than Iraq may I ask if you are in the Forces? would you be happy to go and fight in North Korea. There seems to be a lot people who have these bright ideas while they are safely sitting home in doors while other people do the dirty work.
July 29th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
To all those who think we should be fighting in North Korea rather than Iraq may I ask if you are in the Forces? would you be happy to go and fight in North Korea. There seems to be a lot people who have these bright ideas while they are safely sitting home in doors while other people do the dirty work.
I dont think people are suggesting NK would have been easier I suspect they are saying that in reality NK pose a far greater threat to the world than Iraq and Saddam ever did and therefore an invasion of NK would be more justified.
August 24th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
I can list 1 Million Reasons why we should not attack North Korea.
Each one carrys an AK-47.