• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Oil-For-Food Documents

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The latest update on the UN corruption follows. :doh

May 13, 8:50 AM (ET)

By NICK WADHAMS
The oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996-2003, was designed to let Saddam's government sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods to help the Iraqi people cope with sanctions.
But Saddam twisted it to peddle influence by awarding favored politicians, journalists and other officials vouchers for Iraqi oil that could then be resold at a profit. Details of the scheme first appeared in early 2004 when the Iraqi newspaper al-Mada published a list of about 270 people, many of them French or Russian, who were suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales.
One letter released Thursday says Iraq should "study the possibility to support one of the candidates in the French presidential elections after it becomes clear who is going to win."
Another document says Saddam expressly ordered his government to work toward "the improvement of dealing with France" in 2002.
Source
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Is it any wonder that the members of the UN Security Council gave the cold shoulder to all of the US initiatives with respect to Iraq?

Ill-gotten gains do strange things to the integrity of politicians. (Other people, too.)
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,380
Reaction score
8,538
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fantasea said:
Is it any wonder that the members of the UN Security Council gave the cold shoulder to all of the US initiatives with respect to Iraq?

Ill-gotten gains do strange things to the integrity of politicians. (Other people, too.)
If the dealings of these folks explains the opposition to the invasion of Iraq why doesn't the dealings with Americans have the same effect on our country's stance re the invasion of Iraq?

Second, if you'll notice, there's a group in the O4F docs called the Mojahjedin-e-Khalq. They happen to be on the US's terrorist list. Hussein funded and harbored them. These folks cheered the taking of US hostages in Iraq when the Ayatollah came to power. They killed Americans. They fought were a part of the brutal crackdown on the Kurdish rebellion after the Gulf War (maybe you've heard about that?). They fought alongside iraqi troops against American soldiers during the most recent invasion of Iraq. These are the international terrorists that Hussein sponsored.
Bush Administration advisors have been helped them raise funds here in the US recently. The Treasury Dept allowed them to have a convention here in DC about a month ago.

Why is that whenever I bring up the MEK no Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backers ever acknowledge it? Not just on this board, but anywhere. They're terrorists and members of Team Bush aid them.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Simon W. Moon said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Is it any wonder that the members of the UN Security Council gave the cold shoulder to all of the US initiatives with respect to Iraq?

Ill-gotten gains do strange things to the integrity of politicians. (Other people, too.)
If the dealings of these folks explains the opposition to the invasion of Iraq why doesn't the dealings with Americans have the same effect on our country's stance re the invasion of Iraq?
I don't understand the question.
Second, if you'll notice, there's a group in the O4F docs called the Mojahjedin-e-Khalq. They happen to be on the US's terrorist list. Hussein funded and harbored them. These folks cheered the taking of US hostages in Iraq when the Ayatollah came to power. They killed Americans. They fought were a part of the brutal crackdown on the Kurdish rebellion after the Gulf War (maybe you've heard about that?). They fought alongside iraqi troops against American soldiers during the most recent invasion of Iraq. These are the international terrorists that Hussein sponsored.
Bush Administration advisors have been helped them raise funds here in the US recently. The Treasury Dept allowed them to have a convention here in DC about a month ago.

Why is that whenever I bring up the MEK no Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backers ever acknowledge it? Not just on this board, but anywhere. They're terrorists and members of Team Bush aid them.
As best as I can determine, it kind of works this way, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Yes, they gave us grief in the past. However, since their efforts seem to be directed at destabilizing Iran, the Administration sees as that as beneficial.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that mercenaries, of a sort, will be employed so long as they are useful.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,380
Reaction score
8,538
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fantasea said:
I don't understand the question.
You implied that French fellers being involved w/ the O4F scandal were the reason why France didn't want to be a part of the invasion of Iraq. Since there were American fellers involved as well, why didn't this make American not want to be a part of the invasion?

Fantasea said:
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that mercenaries, of a sort, will be employed so long as they are useful.
It's obvious what's going on. No need to explain.
We've embraced the exact same evil as Saddam Hussein.
I'm not of the mind to find that there are any such things as "good terrorists."
Just keep in mind what you're (apparently) condoning here. They are an Islamo-Marxist terror cult and you're okay with your tax dollars helping them out.

Do you also condone our support for the current regime in Uzbekistan where people are literally boiled alive? Is it a "good brutal dicatorship"?


To addresss the impracticalities of the MEK's situation we'd need another thread. In a nutshell, Iranians call them the Monafeqin. They got this nickname by taking Hussein's side in the Iran Iraq war. It means hypocrites and has religous overtones. Since thsi time they haven't had popular support inside Iran. They've been rendered so ineffectual w/o Hussein's help that Iran has even taken to offering general amnesty to former members.

Thank you for acknowledging that the US is backing the exact same international terrorists that Saddam Hussein did.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Simon W. Moon said:
You implied that French fellers being involved w/ the O4F scandal were the reason why France didn't want to be a part of the invasion of Iraq. Since there were American fellers involved as well, why didn't this make American not want to be a part of the invasion?
For obvious reasons, anyone making money on this deal, regardless of nationality, did not want to see the Iraqi apple cart upset. Anyone who benefited, illegally, from the Food for Oil Program should be prosecuted.
It's obvious what's going on. No need to explain.
We've embraced the exact same evil as Saddam Hussein.
I'm not of the mind to find that there are any such things as "good terrorists."
Just keep in mind what you're (apparently) condoning here. They are an Islamo-Marxist terror cult and you're okay with your tax dollars helping them out.
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? You posed a question; I offered an explanation. Does my knowing the answer imply my support?
Do you also condone our support for the current regime in Uzbekistan where people are literally boiled alive? Is it a "good brutal dicatorship"?
Why the 'inquisition'?
To addresss the impracticalities of the MEK's situation we'd need another thread. In a nutshell, Iranians call them the Monafeqin. They got this nickname by taking Hussein's side in the Iran Iraq war. It means hypocrites and has religous overtones. Since thsi time they haven't had popular support inside Iran. They've been rendered so ineffectual w/o Hussein's help that Iran has even taken to offering general amnesty to former members.

Thank you for acknowledging that the US is backing the exact same international terrorists that Saddam Hussein did.
I would find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with the term, "Politically expedient".

Is a change of heart unheard of? Count the number of former enemies with which the US has resumed diplomatic relations.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,380
Reaction score
8,538
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fantasea said:
For obvious reasons, anyone making money on this deal, regardless of nationality, did not want to see the Iraqi apple cart upset.
But you think that hem fench fellers had more pull with their govt than the US fellers?

Fantasea said:
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? You posed a question; I offered an explanation. Does my knowing the answer imply my support?
My apologies if I've miscontrued the objects of your support.

Fantasea said:
I would find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with the term, "Politically expedient".
It's fitting that you should find such hard to believe. Not sure of why you bring up your issue of faith here though.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Simon W. Moon said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
For obvious reasons, anyone making money on this deal, regardless of nationality, did not want to see the Iraqi apple cart upset.
But you think that hem fench fellers had more pull with their govt than the US fellers?
Until the full report is released, how can anyone know for certain? But, if results are indicative, it would seem so.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Fantasea:
For obvious reasons, anyone making money on this deal, regardless of nationality, did not want to see the Iraqi apple cart upset.
Even if that nationality is American? Even if 52% of all the oil-for-food kickbacks was from American sources? Even if the Bush Administration knew about this, and looked the other way?

The UN failed in its obligations to the world with the oil-for-food scandel. But criticism from the Administration is more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Here's an excerpt from the following link:

The Bush administration knew about the illegal oil sales and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime but did nothing about them, according to a report from Democrats on a Senate committee.

The report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52 per cent of kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil under the UN's food for oil programme - more than the rest of the world put together.


http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/18682087?source=Evening Standard
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
Even if that nationality is American? Even if 52% of all the oil-for-food kickbacks was from American sources? Even if the Bush Administration knew about this, and looked the other way?

The UN failed in its obligations to the world with the oil-for-food scandel. But criticism from the Administration is more than the pot calling the kettle black.

Here's an excerpt from the following link:

The Bush administration knew about the illegal oil sales and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime but did nothing about them, according to a report from Democrats on a Senate committee.

The report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52 per cent of kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil under the UN's food for oil programme - more than the rest of the world put together.


http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/18682087?source=Evening Standard
I think my statment was sufficiently clear that I do not have to amplify it. If you have trouble understanding the few words, read them over until their meaning emerges.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Fantasea [Island]:
I think my statment was sufficiently clear that I do not have to amplify it. If you have trouble understanding the few words, read them over until their meaning emerges
What the hell are you talking about?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Billo_Really said:
What the hell are you talking about?
It's quite simple. Everyone, regardless of nationality, who was improperly involved in the O4F mess should be prosecuted.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Fantasea:
It's quite simple. Everyone, regardless of nationality, who was improperly involved in the O4F mess should be prosecuted.
I totally agree. I'm all for accountability. That puts both administrations (Clinton and Bush) in the hot seat. Because the UN Security Council has known about all this, every year since 1994, and looked the other way.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/03/1451205
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
Until the full report is released, how can anyone know for certain? But, if results are indicative, it would seem so.
Unfortunately for you, the main reason France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq is that their public opinion refused it at a huge majority. And we refused it because we all could see the baselessness of Bush's accusations, and we could see what Blix and all those who KNEW said. Maybe that's something that has no importance for you, but over here, we take public opinion a bit more in higher regard than that.

Result: every reason Bush and Co used for going to war have turned out to be FALSE. But you still hate France and Germany for telling you so. Interesting mindset.

CU
Y
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
epr64 said:
Unfortunately for you, the main reason France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq is that their public opinion refused it at a huge majority. And we refused it because we all could see the baselessness of Bush's accusations, and we could see what Blix and all those who KNEW said. Maybe that's something that has no importance for you, but over here, we take public opinion a bit more in higher regard than that.

Result: every reason Bush and Co used for going to war have turned out to be FALSE. But you still hate France and Germany for telling you so. Interesting mindset.

CU
Y
The mains reason France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq are these:

1. They had huge amounts of money at stake due to the sub-rosa trade they were carrying on with Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions.

2. There was considerable amounts of money flowing from the Oil for Food cheating.

3. Their economies were tanking.

Hans Blix wanted to continue the WMD inspections, didn't he? If he believed that there was nothing there, what would he be looking for?

Public opinion is no way to conduct a war or any activities having to do with national security.

I have no idea of where "over here" may be. Do you care to tell us?
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
epr64 said:
Originally Posted by epr64
Unfortunately for you, the main reason France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq is that their public opinion refused it at a huge majority. And we refused it because we all could see the baselessness of Bush's accusations, and we could see what Blix and all those who KNEW said. Maybe that's something that has no importance for you, but over here, we take public opinion a bit more in higher regard than that.

Result: every reason Bush and Co used for going to war have turned out to be FALSE. But you still hate France and Germany for telling you so. Interesting mindset.

CU
Y
Fantasea said:
The mains reason France and Germany opposed the invasion of Iraq are these:

1. They had huge amounts of money at stake due to the sub-rosa trade they were carrying on with Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions.

2. There was considerable amounts of money flowing from the Oil for Food cheating.

3. Their economies were tanking.

Hans Blix wanted to continue the WMD inspections, didn't he? If he believed that there was nothing there, what would he be looking for?

Public opinion is no way to conduct a war or any activities having to do with national security.

I have no idea of where "over here" may be. Do you care to tell us?
Well, if you REALLY think this, I understand your nick a bit better.

Chirac certainly DID have some money flowing from Iraq. BUT... The reason he opposed the invasion was because, if he wasn't re-elected, he would loose a lot of money. Do you think politicians (top ones) think otherwise? As for Schroeder, there's just NOTHING 'bout him involved in the Oil-for-food business.

BTW, the oil-for-food program was reviewed regularly by the UNSC, in which the US participates. Or you are saying that your politicians are stupid (which is true for ALL politicians, BTW), OR you are saying they let it happen.

As far as Blix is concerned, he wanted more inspections to AVOID the conflict. He would then have been able to prove the whole show by Blair and Bush was bogus. But of course, B&B didn't want it.

And finally, "here" is Europe, my friend. Where you are welcome whenever you want, as long as you leave your M-16 at home.

CU
Y
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
epr64 said:
Well, if you REALLY think this, I understand your nick a bit better.

Chirac certainly DID have some money flowing from Iraq. BUT... The reason he opposed the invasion was because, if he wasn't re-elected, he would loose a lot of money. Do you think politicians (top ones) think otherwise? As for Schroeder, there's just NOTHING 'bout him involved in the Oil-for-food business.

BTW, the oil-for-food program was reviewed regularly by the UNSC, in which the US participates. Or you are saying that your politicians are stupid (which is true for ALL politicians, BTW), OR you are saying they let it happen.

As far as Blix is concerned, he wanted more inspections to AVOID the conflict. He would then have been able to prove the whole show by Blair and Bush was bogus. But of course, B&B didn't want it.

And finally, "here" is Europe, my friend. Where you are welcome whenever you want, as long as you leave your M-16 at home.

CU
Y
Here's some old stuff. Be patient. The new stuff will be out soon.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

Have you ever read the transcripts of Hans Blix's reports to the UN? If not, you should. They are quite interesting.
 
Top Bottom