It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
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.
By first attacking a soverign country?
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.
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.
yet again might i ask is the US free from curruption
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.
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?
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?
The UN has made mistakes and they will admit them but the US has to admit its mistakes as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the British dossier Iraq’s 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.
That distance of 97 miles is nothing compared to other nations.
Israel and Iran have missiles that can travel over 1,000 miles
They did get away with it by putting all of the blame on the UN
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?
There will be far more support for bombing if Hussein flouts Annan than there was when Hussein was simply flouting Clinton.