Sunday Times: Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil

[Marcus Bryant]

Conflict of interest revealed for the judges of Kerry's "global test"...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

October 03, 2004

Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil

Robert Winnett
The Sunday Times

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.

The report was drawn up on behalf of the interim Iraqi government in preparation for a possible legal action against those who may have illicitly profited under Saddam. The Iraqis hired the London-based accountants KPMG and lawyers Freshfields to advise on future action.

It details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.

The UN oil-for-food scheme was set up in 1995 to allow Iraq to sell controlled amounts of oil to raise money for humanitarian supplies. However, the leaked report reveals Saddam systematically abused the scheme, using it to buy “political influence” throughout the world.

The former Iraqi regime was in effect free to “allocate” oil to whom it wished. Dozens of private individuals were given oil at knockdown prices. They were able to nominate recognised traders to buy the cheap oil from the Iraqi state oil firm and sell it for a personal profit.

The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”

The report also details how the regime benefited by arranging illegal “kickbacks” from oil sales.

From September 2000, it is said Saddam made $228m (£127m) from kickbacks deposited in accounts across the Middle East. The analysis details only the export of oil — not the import of humanitarian supplies, also alleged to have been riddled with corruption.

The report is an interim analysis and therefore studies only a sample of oil contracts.

The other main allegations included in the report are that:


Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.

A former senior aide to Putin allegedly organised the sale of almost 4m barrels of oil at a profit of more than £330,000. At the time the oil was sold, Russia was blocking the UN from supporting America’s demands to attack Iraq. According to the report, the aide, who worked in the presidential office, received 3.9m barrels of oil between May and December 2002.

In the two months during the run-up to the war, the Iraqi regime illegally sold about £30m of oil to a Jordanian-based company with the money deposited in a Jordanian bank account established by the regime. This is suspected to have been an attempt to secure safe passage for Saddam’s family in the event of war.

A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents.

The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.

Saddam imposed a surcharge of between 10 cents and 50 cents (5p to 27p) for every barrel of oil allocated by his regime between September 2000 and the end of 2002.

The money raised from this illegal surcharge was deposited in bank accounts in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. Iraqi embassies, including those in Moscow, Athens, Cairo, Rome, Vienna and Geneva, collected the money.

In total, 175 firms and individuals allegedly paid bribes to secure oil from the regime. According to the report: “The only way of enforcing the surcharge was through verbal personal guarantees and promises due to the sensitivity of the surcharge and the secrecy surrounding its imposition. However, after extensive efforts in collecting these amounts, a total of $228m (£127m) out of $263m (£146m) was eventually collected (87% of the total imposed).

“Some companies were afraid to pay the amounts through the banking system, in order not to be exposed or face possible legal sanctions overseas, and therefore preferred to pay in cash.”

The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil — most of which was resold to other nations. Besides Putin’s private office, those named as having received oil include political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry.

A section of the report on Russian involvement says Saddam and his henchmen furthered “their political and propagandist cause through companies, individuals and political parties that have no relation to the oil industry. Through their activities, they have gained the indebtedness of the Russian Federation and with that, its weight and leadership on the world stage as well as its permanent membership of the UN Security Council”.

Last week Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser who worked on the investigation, confirmed the report as genuine. “The records demonstrate that the UN oil-for-food programme provided Saddam with a vehicle to buy support internationally by bribing political parties, companies, journalists and other individuals,” he said. “This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.”

[Marcus Bryant]

bump

[Yonivore]

Shocking! Surely, France and Russia wouldn't be so underhanded.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think this puts the Kerry multilateralist position in its proper perspective.

[Yonivore]

But, Marcus, the U.N. Secretary General's office denied the allegations.

Isn't that enough for you?

[Marcus Bryant]

Not really. Americans need to realize that the UN is not the shiny happy global village that Kerry seems to believe it is. They also need to understand that there are less than noble reasons why certain nations did not support the Iraq invasion.

Of course, I don't want global affirmation, I want national security. Kerry's Franco fetish does nothing for me.

[whottt]

Americans also need to realize that many nations in Europe want to see the US crumble in the exact same way that Russia crumbled. They have their own national agenda, they are not a bunch of humanitarians(much like Kerry isn't much of a humanitarian if you are Viet Nameese or Iraqui). While we look at these people and think of them as our European friends, they do not look at us with the same warmth.


France was a fucking Nazi country, this is one of the great veils pulled over the eyes of the world. And to this day they are a democracy only in name, not in fact.

They captured more jews in WW2 than Germany, and were only too happy to send them off to Germany, they did not surrender to Germany as is often believed, they sided with him and implemented his plans of genocide..The first great outbreaks of anti -semitism in Europe, occurred in France, not Germany.

They also held Americans and British captive for many years after Germany had been driven out...Yes France did.

They have stabbed us in the back at every single turn, they helped us once, long ago, and it was to fuck the British, not help us.

This is why Kerry is an idiot...when he worries about who supports this war...

France - He doesn't realize that anti-semitism has always been as strong, if not stronger, in France, than even Germany. He does not realize that our French allies in WW2 were a minority of that country, and like us, they had to enter France, they were not already in France.

He doesn't seem to realize that we have never been on the same side of a fucking conflict as Germany...why does he all of a sudden think they know what's best for us? Especially since the country has been flooded with still communist East Germans?


He doesn't seem to realize that the Russians are thieves and always have been...they have a corrupt, hypocritical ideal and culture...they talk about how much they despise money, and then they'll kill each other trying to pick up a penny off the ground....kinda like the Arabs do...

When we loaned them materials and equipment in WW2(materials they used to defeat Germany on the Eastern Front) they stole the equipment and never paid us for it(just like France did in both WW's)...They also did not want to leave the territories they liberated.

These countries are not our friends...And the truth is they never really have been...

And just wait...we are going to find out that Saddam did indeed have WMD(how fucking stupid are people that don't realize we gave him months to hide or get rid of this stuff).....I mean in the Persian Gulf War, he moved his airforce to Iran and they were only too happy to take it off his hands...you think they would have a different view of Nuclear materials?

We are going to find out that Saddam had them...and the Russians were the ones who supplied him with the materials, and also helped him remove them...You heard it here first..you think it's any coincidence that Russian diplomats were nearly killed at the beginning of the Iraq war while they were trying to get out of town with documents?

You think it's a coincidence that Iran's nuke program got a huge boost as soon as we took out Saddam's?

Bottom line, France still wants to control(colonize) the middle east...just like they always have...The Russians hate us as much as they always have, and they do not want us increasing our influence in their region of the
world.

This is why John Kerry is an idiot...this is why his picture hangs in a position of honor with the Viet Cong...why he is celebrated there...this is why Osama wants him to be elected..because he lacks Bush's penchant for kicking the living shit out of countries or movements that bomb us.

Oh, and he's also an idiot if he thinks he could have gotten Germany and France to support us in Iraq in any way shape or form...France made it clear they would veto in resolution that involved going into Iraq, under any circumstances...Kerry is an idiot if he thinks his ability to suck European and Arab dick would make any difference in those countries supporting us...

Those countries populations do not want to go to war period and Schroder and ChIRAQ's anti US stance is about the only thing their populations don't hate about their leadership.

This is why I am voting Bush, inspite of my disdain for him....

I am voting for him because...sometimes you need an asshole in the Whitehouse..and I don't have any doubts about Bush's patriotism or willingness to make the unpopular decision if he believes it's in America's best interest.

It used to be the Democrats that stood for these kind of decision, it's the Democrats that nuked the fight out of Japan, it's the Democrats that fought communism all over the world...somewhere along the way the Democrats became a bunch of out of touch shithead elitists...

And Kerry is the worst presidential candidate in history...he isn't worried about what's in America's best interest...he's worried about being able to suck as much European aristocratic dick as he can fit in his mouth at a single serving.

[CommanderMcBragg]

So we should just believe everything Bush says?
Like WMD? - None found.
Like a link to 9/11? - None found.

People need to realize that President Bush isn't the all powerful and all-knowing OZ.

[Marcus Bryant]

Like WMD? - None found.

Everyone including John Kerry believed Hussein had them.




Like a link to 9/11? - None found.

The Iraq invasion was not meant to avenge 9/11.

[exstatic]

They held Americans and British captive for many years after Germany had been driven out...Yes France did.

In the words of a long time poster...game over.

:lmao

[whottt]

In the words of a long time poster...game over.

:lmao

In the words of whottt...the guy who said we could merely switch soldiers from our main millitary into special forces, thus making them special in name only...should not be laughing at anyone, since he proved once again why the word millitary intelligence is an oxymoron...I hope you weren't an officer.

I got 3 words for you...snob with his head up Europe's ass...


Kurt Werner Schaechter

[Marcus Bryant]

What exactly is the benefit of being popular besides being popular? We were fairly popular through the 90s as we failed to respond to terrorist attack after terrorist attack, including one on US soil and at the WTC no less.

The Kerry approach to dealing with Islamist terrorism has been tried already. It failed miserably.

[whottt]

So we should just believe everything Bush says?
Like WMD? - None found.
Like a link to 9/11? - None found.

People need to realize that President Bush isn't the all powerful and all-knowing OZ.


Bush sucks, that said, he's 1 trillion times the better candidate than Kerry.

Unless you think other countries know what's best for us...countries, we held off from being swallowed by the Soviet Union, countries who twice involved us in their wars for control over the middle east...countries that themselves are the ones guilty of colonizing the word..I mean we speak French, English, Spanish and Portugese here in this side of the world..where did those languages originate?

This is why I always get a kick out of mexican immigrants that want to hang onto spanish as if it is their mother tongue...it's not...it's a European language just like English.

...countries that themselves were behind the creation of Israel, the appointment of despots to rulership status in the middle east...and we are cleaning up their mess in the middle east...not ours.

I mean how many times do you hear us being accused of expansionism and colonization?

Who the fuck have we colonized since we founded our country? We were the ones that started the end of colonization and imperialism..

You hear us being accused of propping up dictators...while I admit we might be guilty of that in South America...we had nothing to do with any of the dictators that came to power in the Middle East...that situation, and thus the same lack of human rights that has lead to extremist Islam, was created by Europe, not us.

I'm a liberal more than anything, but the more I hear stupid shit like this blamed on the US the more conservative I get, the more I realize we need to not be trusting Europe, or anyone that advocates that policy, to know what's best for us.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Bush does suck and Kerry is twice the man Bush will ever be.

You all have your heads so far up Dubya's ass you are all looking through his eyes are just as blind as he is.

Just go ahead and bend over and let him give it to you all again.

[Marcus Bryant]

That was an insightful and content rich post.

[Yonivore]

Bush does suck and Kerry is twice the man Bush will ever be.
Do you really think it's wise to share such a personal impression of the candidates. It just might invite some good-hearted ribbing from other posters, Commander. Anyway, I doubt you've ever been exposed to President Bush's "manhood."

You all have your heads so far up Dubya's ass you are all looking through his eyes are just as blind as he is.

Just go ahead and bend over and let him give it to you all again.
You mean like this?
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041002/capt.sge.oqt20.021004074433.photo00.default-384x289.jpg

[spurster]

Halliburton profited from "oil-for-food" too. Does that make the US as corrupt as France and Russia?

No one said the UN was a "shiny happy global village" or anything close to that.

The US can't solve the world's problems by itself. To some extent, the US needs to work with and cooperate with other countries. Neither Bush nor Kerry is going to be completely one extreme or the other. The question is the level of cooperation, not "yes, we submit to the UN", or "no, we are the Lone Ranger".

Every country including the US (did I mention Halliburton?) has some level of real and perceived corruption. To point out one instance of corruption and then claim we can't work with them is fine demagoguery, but lousy politics.

If we can't convince our natural allies of a problem, then we should question our data. In this case, the issue is mixed. Bush had his own version of Kerry's global test because Bush convinced some countries to join us (e.g., Great Britian, Italy, Spain, and Poland (don't forget Poland)), but now countries are leaving (e..g., Spain and Poland). Again, the question is the level of global support, not that Kerry wants unanimity from the world and Bush is going to do everything by himself. Another question is the quality of the data to begin with, which we have argued endlessly on other threads.

Every country weighs their interests and makes their choice for the greater good or lesser evil or however you want to look at it. The US does an enormous amount of business with China despite its lousy political system and human rights. Haven't we (like the claim on France and Russia) sacrificed moral principles for economic gain?

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, our "natural allies" France, Germany, and Russia certainly had a vested interest in the Hussein regime remaining in power. Considering that the United States received the support of other Western European nations such opposition seems a little less a matter of principle or skepticism and a lot more self-serving. Thus the criticism of the Bush administration to pass the "global test" rings a bit more hollow.

Why didn't the UK, Spain, Australia or Italy reject the invasion? Scoff at Poland all you want but I don't believe those countries are insignificant.

[Marcus Bryant]

Haven't we (like the claim on France and Russia) sacrificed moral principles for economic gain?

Sure. Which is why we shouldn't take the opposition of those countries to the Iraq invasion to mean that it was not just nor necessary. Also, perhaps we should not take it as an indication that the US failed some "global test" when it led the invasion to end the Hussein regime.

[Yonivore]

Halliburton profited from "oil-for-food" too. Does that make the US as corrupt as France and Russia?
No, they aren't implicated in the scandal...which is far beyond mere profit.

No one said the UN was a "shiny happy global village" or anything close to that.
That's good because, they're not.

The US can't solve the world's problems by itself.
The U.N. has yet to solve one single international conflict in its entire existence. The US has a much better track record.

To some extent, the US needs to work with and cooperate with other countries.
I'm not an isolationist but, I doubt that statement is true. In reality, the U.S. could close its borders and be perfectly fine with a domestic economy. In fact, after we rounded up the illegal aliens and VISA bearers and shipped them across the border, the U.S. would be perfectly capable of feeding, clothing, and housing it's own citizens. It's the rest of the world than cannot function without a relationship with the U.S.

Neither Bush nor Kerry is going to be completely one extreme or the other. The question is the level of cooperation, not "yes, we submit to the UN", or "no, we are the Lone Ranger".
Kerry has indicated he will seek to pass some "global test" in all his foreign policy decisions...that's pretty absolute. President Bush, on the other hand, hasn't abandoned the U.N. In fact, in conflict with what I would advise him, he's still playing the U.N. game. Only on Iraq has the U.S. acted unilaterally. And, only on questions of national security and self defense, has the President said he would act unilaterally if necessary.

President Clinton did the same with Bosnia.

Every country including the US (did I mention Halliburton?) has some level of real and perceived corruption. To point out one instance of corruption and then claim we can't work with them is fine demagoguery, but lousy politics.
It's obvious you don't comprehend the magnitude of the Oil-for-Food Scandal. Might I suggest you read up on it and come back... And, aside from some allegations of overcharging that have been detected and are being investigated, what corruption (involving Halliburton) are you suggesting?

If we can't convince our natural allies of a problem, then we should question our data. In this case, the issue is mixed. Bush had his own version of Kerry's global test because Bush convinced some countries to join us (e.g., Great Britian, Italy, Spain, and Poland (don't forget Poland)), but now countries are leaving (e..g., Spain and Poland). Again, the question is the level of global support, not that Kerry wants unanimity from the world and Bush is going to do everything by himself. Another question is the quality of the data to begin with, which we have argued endlessly on other threads.
Why was France and Germany so adamantly opposed? Why was the Secretary General of the U.N. so adamantly opposed? You're argument would make more sense if two realities weren't standing behind you, looking over your shoulder, as you typed:

1) Everyone, including France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. believed Iraq had banned weapons in their possession -- EVERYONE. You can't find one statement prior to March 2003 -- except by Saddam Hussein -- that asserts Iraq did not have them and would not use them. Not one. Also, no one seems to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the provisions of the U.N.S.C resolutions that demand he account for the tons of weapons that he was known to possess when inspectors were last in the country...where'd they go?

2) The United States wasn't alone in it's decision to invade Iraq. More than 30 countries joined the coalition in some capacity. Just because you have two UNSC Permanent members threatening a VETO doesn't mean there isn't considerable consensus among other nations that action was warranted. I think France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. Secretariat General should be held accountable for their positions and that they should be forced to reckon with why they, when so much evidence pointed to the contrary, remained so opposed to forcing Iraq into compliance with their own resolutions...all 17 of them.

Every country weighs their interests and makes their choice for the greater good or lesser evil or however you want to look at it. The US does an enormous amount of business with China despite its lousy political system and human rights. Haven't we (like the claim on France and Russia) sacrificed moral principles for economic gain?
So, you advocate economic chaos every 4 years?

Do we have economic relationships with unsavory countries? Yep...unfortunately we do. Let's look at China, for instance. Until President Clinton lifted trade restrictions on certain dual use techonologies, and started shipping them the knowledge and techonology necessary to upgrade their nuclear capabilities, the economic relationship we had with China was pretty much confined to the Happy Meal toy variety.

Now, President Bush is left with having to balance what was, before he took office, a relatively straightforward trade relationship. Now, President Bush is a faced with a more powerful nuclear power thanks to the previous administration. In other words, administrations are forced to live with the sins of their predecessors and make policy, as best they can, given the confines of previous agreements.

How 'bout Jimmy Carter's mission to North Korea in 1994? That caused the Clinton administration -- thinking they had a non-proliferation agreement with Kim Jong Mentally-Ill -- to completely ignore the next seven years nuclear maturation in North Korea. Now, you've got the Left bleating at President Bush for NOT doing to North Korea what he did in Iraq. You've got a Demoncratic Presidential candidate honking about how he'd act unilaterally with North Korea, -- a country that probably already has the capability of striking our West Coast with a nuclear weapon -- but would have sought to pass some "global test" on Iraq -- a country that all agreed had nuclear ambitions and whom President Bush opted to stop dead in it's tracks before they became a North Korea.

Different solutions for different problems.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It scares me to think of Kerry as our pres. Think about what Clinton gave away to China, it will be ten times worse under Kerry only it will be to France, Germany, Russia, and North Korea.

We need someone with a pair in the White House right now (and for the foreseeable future), Kerry's limp-wristed "global testing" will do nothing but further this country down the path that Rome once took.

No thanks.

[whottt]

Um I hate to tell you guys this about Haliburton, but they have been a part of the civillian war support for the US and been a major recipient of US defense contracts in wars since WW2. Long before Dick Chaney was appointed their CEO. Haliburton's ties to the US Govt and defense predate the Bush administration. They were one of the biggest recipients of US contracts under the Clinton administration, they have been hired by the British govt..by countries all over the world......they have excelled in those areas, in rebuilding infrastructure, in oil well engineering, in logisticial support for the US millitary, in base building for the US millitary, for most of the 20th century.

In fact when they were first used a Democratic president was in office and awarded them their first contract.

Who would you rather we use? The city of San Antonio public works dept? I think the reason the US uses them is because they have a tradition of being successful at what they are hired to do(inspite of their fucked up accounting)

So if someone can name me another company that has the capability and experience of handling rebuilding oil and civillian infrastructure, and civil engineering projects, as well as an expertise in logistical support and base building for the US millitary, other than Haliburton, please give me their name. And then give me a reason why we should be trying to use a company with less experience....

You guys act like it is a crime that Dick Chaney was successful at running that company...he did what he was supposed to do as their CEO.

He was involved in the US Govt long before he was involved with Haliburton...and Haliburton was involved with the US Govt long before Bush(either of them) was elected president.

Yes they do make money off of war...but they also are about the only company in the world qualified to do the things that allows them to make money off the war.

They are the most qualified company to do this job...as their 60 years of experience in doing it proves.

I'd rather a US country make that money, since we are the ones paying for this fucking war, then some french company, and if the French wanted it to be one of their companies, they should have taken part in the war.

The oil thing is kind of a ridiculous accusation...if we wanted Oil we would have never gone to war with Saddam in the first place...We could have leveraged all the Oil we wanted out of him the past 12 years...what changed?

We had an ulterior motive for going into Iraq...but it's not what you guys think IMO(no I have no link for this)...

but it's to surround Iran on all sides and turn up the heat on their Anti American asses. Iran, the first country to fall to radical islam, the major exporter of terrorism.

Come to think of it...we also have Pakistan pretty much surrounded on all sides...Does even a liberal doubt that if an individual with a suicide bombers mentality comes to power in one of these countries and gets his finger on the button that he will not hesitate to use it?

That if one of these same countries gets it's hands on nuclear materials, that it will have a hard time finding some homicidal fuck to come here and blow himself up in the US with a dirty bomb?

The US is in the process of surrounding all the areas where terrorists are likely to get their hands on nuclear materials, of putting themselves in position to take out the nuclear capabilities of the countries most likely to use nuclear materials. Pakistan, Iran, even Israel.

There are political ties to Haliburton and individuals making money off this war...there were also political ties and individuals, and countries, making money off being opposed to this war...They didn't get bombed...we did.

People in the world with homicidal/suicidal tendencies, that want to get their hands on nuclear materials, that have sworn to destroy America, do exist, this is not being paranoid. Look at who we are fighting in Iraq..

And I think Haliburton got a 600 million dollar contract off the Iraq war...pretty damn slick..but it pales it comparison to the slick manuvering of Kerry when he married a Heinz.

[exstatic]

In the words of whottt...the guy who said we could merely switch soldiers from our main millitary into special forces, thus making them special in name only...

Uh, actually, I never said that. What I said was that soldiers are moved from one career field to another all of the time. That is NEVER done without proper training, fool, nor were the French secretly hiding US troops after WWII.

Are those Black Helicopters hovering over your house depriving you of needed sleep? I always know when you've been served. You change the subject to something not relavent to the thread.

MB - You may want to consider quoting someone else in your tagline. :rollin

[Yonivore]

Here's a good "official" synopsis of the scandal -- as will be investigated by Congress.

U.S. Congressional Inquiry (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/100104_briefing_memo.pdf)

[exstatic]

It's funny how when the UN is being flouted by Saddam, it's a terrible thing, but when we have our own agenda and they are in the way, the UN is an incompetent bunch of fools, until we want to extricate ourselves from the Iraq mess by bringing in international troops, that is.

Talk about flip-flopping...

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually your moral equivocation of the United States and Iraq is supremely entertaining.

[exstatic]

Actually your moral equivocation of the United States and Iraq is supremely entertaining.

As is your evasion of my point. There was no moral comparision, just a comparsion of their regard for the UN, which in both cases is apparently zero, based strictly on their actions.

[Yonivore]

"It's funny how when the UN is being flouted by Saddam, it's a terrible thing,..."
It is, and it's made worse when the Secretary General of the U.N., and the Nations of France, Germany, and Russia are complicit in that "flouting."


"...but when we have our own agenda and they are in the way, the UN is an incompetent bunch of fools,..."
I believe the word used was "irrelevant."


"...until we want to extricate ourselves from the Iraq mess by bringing in international troops, that is."
I don't see the President's insistence that the U.N. -- and it's membership -- has an obligation in Iraq to be a sign he wants to "extricate" the U.S. from the situation. He's trying to get more countries on the right side of the argument.


"Talk about flip-flopping..."
None of the circumstances you mention preclude the U.N. from being incompetent. Nor are any of them mutually exclusive or inconsistent with the others.

[Marcus Bryant]

As is your evasion of my point. There was no moral comparision, just a comparsion of their regard for the UN, which in both cases is apparently zero, based strictly on their actions.

I evaded nothing. You implied that the US and Iraqi disregard for the United States were similiar, which they were not. Hussein disregarded UN resolution after UN resolution including the one he agreed to which ended the original Gulf War. The United States was not under any obligation to get UN approval for the invasion.

And again, if you say that the United States and Hussein's government were not morally similiar, then your point, while cute, is utterly lacking of any real significance.

Man, I hope Kerry gets elected and you get to marry your boyfriend or whatever has you so willing to slip into the bounds of absurdity to bash Bush.

[whottt]

Uh, actually, I never said that. What I said was that soldiers are moved from one career field to another all of the time. That is NEVER done without proper training, fool, nor were the French secretly hiding US troops after WWII.

I never said they were secretly hiding US troops after WWII. I said they held Americans and Brits in interrment camps(the same camps in which they held jews for the Germans) long after WWII.

Before assuming I am just talking out of my ass on this subject why don't you do some research...again the presumption on your part says more about your arrogance and ignorance than it does anything else.

And what's really stupid is you acting like just anyone that's in the millitary can be trained for special forces...Trust me, scoring a 19 on the AVSAB, like you probably did, is not going to cut it.




Are those Black Helicopters hovering over your house depriving you of needed sleep? I always know when you've been served. You change the subject to something not relavent to the thread.

I haven't been served...you are ignorant of the history of WWII and think you know it, when you don't.

And I don't see any black helicopters hovering over my house...but you might ask the people who think Bush and Chaney blew up the World Trade Center to justify going into Iraq, if they see them.

[whottt]

Bottom line is that the UN, and those that vetoed the war are as corrupt, and partisan, in this Iraq affair as anything the Bush administration has been accused of...

But what's scary is that fucking Kerry thinks these guys are altrusitic and to be emulated...we should be seeking their approval. They are our friends and have our best interests at heart...Only an idiot can't see that their hatred of us is much more deeply rooted than anything Bush could have done in the past few years...They don't like our power, and they would not mind seeing us taken down.

At worst, I'd rather have a greedy, warmongering, but patriotic asshole running the country then a total naive fucking fool, which is what Kerry is.

Having a liberal foreign policy in this environment is like trying to clap with one hand...there's nothing on the other side to clap with...

[exstatic]

It is, and it's made worse when the Secretary General of the U.N., and the Nations of France, Germany, and Russia are complicit in that "flouting."

How can the Secretary General of the UN flout the UN?


I don't see the President's insistence that the U.N. -- and it's membership -- has an obligation in Iraq to be a sign he wants to "extricate" the U.S. from the situation. He's trying to get more countries on the right side of the argument.

The only problem is that the obligation is NOT the UN's, it's ours since we were bound and determined to "go it alone". We shouldn't be expecting the UN to take us off of this hook when we weren't willing to listen to them.

[whottt]

It's funny how when the UN is being flouted by Saddam, it's a terrible thing, but when we have our own agenda and they are in the way, the UN is an incompetent bunch of fools, until we want to extricate ourselves from the Iraq mess by bringing in international troops, that is.

Talk about flip-flopping...

We wanted the UN to be with us in the first place, which pretty much destroyed the BS that this war is just for Oil....we tried to make it a mulilateral process...where have you been?

It's not like we tried to exclude their participation in this process. We always wanted their help...and since they have done nothing but bitch about atrocities since the beginning of this war, why don't they get their asses in there and do something about it rather than just bitching about it.

[whottt]

How can the Secretary General of the UN flout the UN?



The only problem is that the obligation is NOT the UN's, it's ours since we were bound and determined to "go it alone". We shouldn't be expecting the UN to take us off of this hook when we weren't willing to listen to them.

Then they need to shut the fuck up about the atrocities and calling this an illegal war if they aren't willing to do anything about it...Either way the UN proves how irrelevant it is.

You do realize that part of the hate in the Muslim World that Osama tapped was the suffering of the Iraquis under the UN Sanctions right?


Sanctions that Bill Clinton was #1 in maintaining...Sanctions that it seems France, Germany and Russia didn't mind seeing continue indefinitely....I wonder why.

These actions by the UN are just as corrupt as anything America has been accused of doing. Too bad the terrorists didn't take out the fucking UN building instead of the World Trade Center...the world would probably be a better place right now.