It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil for food, the other non-neocon explaination

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I came across this and thought some people might like a little look at an alternative view on this so-called scandel and check out the list of 'usual suspects' found to have been helping stir this one up.

Conrad Black's name springs out (ex-owner of the - well known for it's ultra right-wing stance - UK Daily Telegraph).

Check it out.
www.counterpunch.com...

(Sorry Flyers fan but it isn't quite the line you have been peddling so hard!
)




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The scapegoating and the exaggerations of the neo-cons oil for food 'scandal' seems to have run it's course. It didn't convince anyone that it was the real reason we invaded Iraq. It didn't convince anyone that the UN was evil and Koffi had to step down. The only thing it did was cast light on the US's illegal activities, which is why you see such a flip-flop from Bush and his cronies, "Oh no! We love Koffi! Um, we can stop investigating now!"



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
What actual evidence did this give to indicate America did something wrong? I didn't see any.

When they ask what was the scandel, they go through the accusation, and then I guess the argument against it is that America once supported Saddam. They really didn't put up much of an argument to oppose what's been found in America's investigation so far.

It basically just pushed the left's view that sanctions were wrong, and that America was wrong for wanting them kept. It then tried to use the lack of WMD's found in the invasion to justify this point. It really doesn't make much sense to bring up a point learned after the fact. It doesn't explain how the UN itself stated Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions multiple times, and how they never accounted for a number of their chemical weapons.

Why doesn't this article mention how France, Germany, Russia and China all had oil interests in Iraq? Even if you were to believe America started this war for oil, then surely you'd also have to say that these nations opposed the war for the same exact reason. Why no mention of the French officials receiving oil as personal gifts?

It mentions the usual things all liberals love to bring up, like how we once supported Saddam. This isn't an argument for anything. It wasn't related to the Oil for Food scandel at all.

I find it amazingly hypocritical that liberals are defending Kofi and the UN through this, yet never stop making baseless accusations when it comes to Halliburton.

I can't count how many times people have blamed the president for every mistake made while conducting the Iraq war. I've seen the claim that as the president it is his responsibility to know every little thing that goes on. Why isn't Annan being held to the same standards?

Why do liberals keep trying to push the blame back to America for all of this, instead of the UN? I don't care if you hate Bush, you still have to acknowledge when the UN and others make mistakes.

Presenting a one-sided editorial that presents no real facts or arguments and just spreads the typical far-left accusations of America being an evil empire is pathetic.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What actual evidence did this give to indicate America did something wrong? I didn't see any.

By first attacking a soverign country?



When they ask what was the scandel, they go through the accusation, and then I guess the argument against it is that America once supported Saddam. They really didn't put up much of an argument to oppose what's been found in America's investigation so far.

Yeah a few induvuduals where being bribed does this mean the whole thing is currupt? To the right wing side yes, yet they are just as currupt so basically they are hypocrits.


It basically just pushed the left's view that sanctions were wrong, and that America was wrong for wanting them kept. It then tried to use the lack of WMD's found in the invasion to justify this point. It really doesn't make much sense to bring up a point learned after the fact. It doesn't explain how the UN itself stated Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions multiple times, and how they never accounted for a number of their chemical weapons.

Oh really? care to show this evidence. Or how the UN inspectors said all the nuclear programe was stopped and couldnt be restarted.
The number of chemical weapons not acounted can be exsplained by a number of reasons but the reason they where there in the first place before GW1 are not so easy.


Why doesn't this article mention how France, Germany, Russia and China all had oil interests in Iraq? Even if you were to believe America started this war for oil, then surely you'd also have to say that these nations opposed the war for the same exact reason. Why no mention of the French officials receiving oil as personal gifts?

yet again might i ask is the US free from curruption?


It mentions the usual things all liberals love to bring up, like how we once supported Saddam. This isn't an argument for anything. It wasn't related to the Oil for Food scandel at all.

Actually it is.
Firstly the right wing side tends to insult the UN by saying they are currupt yet are currupt themselves. This shows the hyprocracy in thier arguemnt, so there fore reduceing their arguements vadality.


I find it amazingly hypocritical that liberals are defending Kofi and the UN through this, yet never stop making baseless accusations when it comes to Halliburton.

So are you saying the UN is totaly currupt and every member , ever soldier/marine/airman/troop is currupt and helps steal is that what you are saying?


I can't count how many times people have blamed the president for every mistake made while conducting the Iraq war. I've seen the claim that as the president it is his responsibility to know every little thing that goes on. Why isn't Annan being held to the same standards?

The UN never was in iraq so couldnt be blamed for anything in that war, and also the fact he was the pres yet still with bad intel he went in does that signify a good leader?


Why do liberals keep trying to push the blame back to America for all of this, instead of the UN? I don't care if you hate Bush, you still have to acknowledge when the UN and others make mistakes.

The UN has made mistakes and they will admit them but the US has to admit its mistakes as well.


Presenting a one-sided editorial that presents no real facts or arguments and just spreads the typical far-left accusations of America being an evil empire is pathetic.

Really and i suppose provideing a right winged editorial makes it ok?
Propaganda is used by both sides and is a legal weapon, get used to it.


[edit on 11-12-2004 by devilwasp]

[edit on 11-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

By first attacking a soverign country?


This had nothing to do with the Oil for Food program. America attacking Iraq didn't cause the UN to take corrupt action, and it doesn't show how America did anything wrong in relation to the program. I guess I have to be as specific as possible from now on...


Yeah a few induvuduals where being bribed does this mean the whole thing is currupt? To the right wing side yes, yet they are just as currupt so basically they are hypocrits.


You state this several times in your post. How about giving some examples of "right wing" corruption.

Either way, at least 21 billion was stolen over a decade or so. Do you honestly think that just involves a few individuals? That's a large sum of money, and it shouldn't have gone unnoticed by the head of the UN. What exactly is this guy doing? Does he just sit around all day, oblivious to what his organization is doing?


Oh really? care to show this evidence. Or how the UN inspectors said all the nuclear programe was stopped and couldnt be restarted.


Who said anything about a nuclear program? A WMD doesn't have to be a nuke. I never said anything about nukes.

Saddam had ballistic missiles well out of the UN's limited range that were obtained under UN sanctions. He was also planning on buying a missile system from North Korea before America invaded.

www.freerepublic.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...

The UN was going to add more resolutions before we invaded Iraq because they were in violation.

When you say Iraq's weapons programs can't be restarted, you are horribly mistaken. Saddam always retained the knowledge and facilities to build these weapons. He was clearly trying to get sanctions against him lifted. He was already buying missile systems. Saddam kept the ability to make weapons, and would have eventually been able to do it if he already wasn't.


The number of chemical weapons not acounted can be exsplained by a number of reasons but the reason they where there in the first place before GW1 are not so easy.


Feel free to explain, then.


yet again might i ask is the US free from curruption


No organization is completely free of corruption. I do not believe that anyone in the American government would get away with the type of corruption involved in the Oil for Food scandel. 21 billion is too much to go unnoticed.


Firstly the right wing side tends to insult the UN by saying they are currupt yet are currupt themselves. This shows the hyprocracy in thier arguemnt, so there fore reduceing their arguements vadality.


We aren't hypocrites for supporting Saddam once. The entire Western world was. I'll remind everyone that we just gave Saddam money. He was using it to buy French, and Russian weapons. It also has nothing to do with the Oil for Food scandel.


So are you saying the UN is totaly currupt and every member , ever soldier/marine/airman/troop is currupt and helps steal is that what you are saying?


Nothing about my statement even came close to this. I said its hypocritical of liberals to defend Annan with real evidence that the Oil for Food program was a massively corrupt failure, while pointing out Halliburton as a sign of Bush's administration being corrupt with no evidence.


The UN never was in iraq so couldnt be blamed for anything in that war, and also the fact he was the pres yet still with bad intel he went in does that signify a good leader?


This doesn't make any logical sense. I was making a comparison. Bush gets blamed for everything that happens on his watch (such as the explosives that went missing), while Annan gets a free pass when 21 billion is stolen right from under his nose.

Tell me, does allowing such massive ammounts of corruption in the Oil for Food program signify that Annan is competent? Even if you were to believe he didn't have know about it, it certainly shows a great deal of incompetence on his part.


The UN has made mistakes and they will admit them but the US has to admit its mistakes as well.


I don't Annan apologizing. I remember him blaming the Security Council members for everything. How about Rwanda? The UN doesn't except blame there. How about the current situation in the Sudan which has been going on for years?

The UN has never admitted any mistakes. They are supposed to be the leaders of the world now, so shouldn't they admit mistakes before America?

The constant comparisons to America itself is flawed. What America does doesn't change what Annan and the UN did. You can't simply excuse an action by pointing out another mistake made elsewhere.

I'm asking liberals to start holding the UN to the same standards (if not higher standards) than America and the rest of the world's nations. Hey, if the UN is really fit to tell us what we can or can't do, they should certainly be held to a higher moral standard.


Really and i suppose provideing a right winged editorial makes it ok?
Propaganda is used by both sides and is a legal weapon, get used to it.


I'd like to see a fair story on the scandel. I tend to find a story on the BBC to be fair. I don't find an editorial on a liberal rague to be credible.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Saddam had ballistic missiles well out of the UN's limited range that were obtained under UN sanctions. He was also planning on buying a missile system from North Korea before America invaded.


They were not well out of range.
They were only out by a few miles on some of the tests because the missiles weren't loaded with warheads or guidance sytems that would weigh them down and reduce their distance.

globalpolicy
Blix reported the newly developed Al Samoud 2 exceeded that limit on 13 test flights, by no more than 20 miles. On 27 of 40 flights, the missile tested short of the permitted threshold, Blix told U.N. diplomats behind closed doors.


That distance of 97 miles is nothing compared to other nations.
Israel and Iran have missiles that can travel over 1,000 miles.



No organization is completely free of corruption. I do not believe that anyone in the American government would get away with the type of corruption involved in the Oil for Food scandel. 21 billion is too much to go unnoticed.


They did get away with it by putting all of the blame on the UN.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Rather than spend time slamming facts on the table, all of which would be ignored, I will point out that y'all doggedly attack the U.S. foreign policy with less evidence and attempt to defend the U.N., the most corrupt of all "organizations", in the face of damning evidence.

I have to admit, the dauntless attitudes in the face of contrary logic, fact and reasoning is very admirable. I guess.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I feel I must issue a DSA (Double-Standards Alert), on this thread.

It is a double-standard to to give Kofi a pass on the Oil-for-food scandal while asserting that GWB is responsible for the individual actions of every single US Soldier or American Business Intrest.

This totally transparent hypocracy is the entire reason the UN is ineffectual at anything besides lining their own pockets. I think it is insulting that they believe we are so stupid as to not see what they are really up to.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
This totally transparent hypocracy is the entire reason the UN is ineffectual at anything besides lining their own pockets. I think it is insulting that they believe we are so stupid as to not see what they are really up to.


The "ineffectuality" of the UN can also be laid in good part at the feet of the U.S. government which, for ten years, has shown increasing lack of goodwill when it comes to paying its dues to the UN, both under Clinton and under George W. Bush - even though they backed Kofi Annan's candidacy to the top chair at the UN, and he proved to be a pro-U.S. Secretary General in his first years in power. (see slate.msn.com... )

The impact of the non-payment or late payment of what the U.S. owes has forced the UN to cut back on its peacekeeping missions - so it's far too easy, after that, for the U.S. to come back and accuse the UN of being ineffectual.

No one is denying that the individuals involved in the oil-for-food scandal, be they UN officials or foreign nationals, must be punished if the proof is overwhelming against them. But I really do doubt that righteous outrage is the only reason neocons are shouting so angrily about this scandal. The United Nations is an obstacle to what the U.S. government really wants to do - act unilaterally in the world without having to act permission. So although the scandal is genuine, it's incredibly convenient that the neocons found a way to push it past the level of involvement of a number of government officials and actually cast the discredit on every major country that happened to oppose the war in Iraq... and, as a bonus, the entire UN.

Because what I hear being said by neocons and right-wingers is basically:

"The UN secretary general is corrupt, so the entire UN is corrupt and must be done away with, or reformed"

"The Western world was wrong and the U.S. was right on Iraq."

What better way to pull out these obstacles to American domination?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

They were only out by a few miles on some of the tests because the missiles weren't loaded with warheads or guidance sytems that would weigh them down and reduce their distance.


The Al Samound wasn't all they had. They had more advanced missiles.


According to the British dossier Iraqs Weapons of Mass Destruction released in September 2002, Iraq had told UNSCOM that it had filled 25 warheads with anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. Iraq also developed chemical agent warheads for al-Hussein and had admitted to producing 50 chemical warheads for al-Hussein which were intended for the delivery of a mixture of sarin and cyclosarin. However,technical analysis of warhead remnants had shown traces of VX degradation product which indicated that some additional warheads were made and filled with VX.

That same dossier concluded that, according to intelligence, Iraq had retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 687. These missiles were either hidden from the UN as complete systems, or re-assembled using illegally retained engines and other components. The British government judged that the engineering expertise available would allow these missiles to be maintained effectively, although the fact that at least some require re-assembly made it difficult to judge exactly how many could be available for use.


Source - globalsecurity.org...


That distance of 97 miles is nothing compared to other nations.
Israel and Iran have missiles that can travel over 1,000 miles


Iran and Isreal aren't restricted.


They did get away with it by putting all of the blame on the UN


You see, that's the problem. You have to show at least some kind of evidence that America was the one stealing the Oil for Food money.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts

The impact of the non-payment or late payment of what the U.S. owes has forced the UN to cut back on its peacekeeping missions - so it's far too easy, after that, for the U.S. to come back and accuse the UN of being ineffectual.

The United Nations is an obstacle to what the U.S. government really wants to do - act unilaterally in the world without having to act permission. So although the scandal is genuine, it's incredibly convenient that the neocons found a way to push it past the level of involvement of a number of government officials and actually cast the discredit on every major country that happened to oppose the war in Iraq... and, as a bonus, the entire UN.

What better way to pull out these obstacles to American domination?

This argument might have some merit if it actually were the case. The UN cannot stop the US from acting unilaterally, as we have seen.

This from the 1998 article you cited:

There will be far more support for bombing if Hussein flouts Annan than there was when Hussein was simply flouting Clinton.

Seventeen flaunted UN resolutions and 12 years later, we saw how that worked, didn't we? The author didn't take into account the power of the bribe.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join