Oil For Food Scandal...

[conserv.pat15]

Did countries in the U.N. Security Council get a pass when it came to the Oil For Food Scandal?

 

[Billo_Really]

You need to define what getting a pass means.

The entire SC was briefed every year on where the money was being spent and nothing was said for years until the US started a smear campaign because we could not get UNSC support to authorize an invasion of Iraq.

 

[conserv.pat15]

You need to define what getting a pass means.

The entire SC was briefed every year on where the money was being spent and nothing was said for years until the US started a smear campaign because we could not get UNSC support to authorize an invasion of Iraq.

Isn't it interesting how all the countries in the UNSC voted for the resolution (1441) and then when it came to enforcing the resolution (1441), they didn't want to anymore?

Nice job smearing the United States for pointing out the truth... Are you a blame America first type of person?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Isn't the US one of those countries?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Isn't it interesting how all the countries in the UNSC voted for the resolution (1441) and then when it came to enforcing the resolution (1441), they didn't want to anymore?

1441 did not authorize the use of force. When the UNSC authorizes force, they do so by including the verbage, "...use all necessary means", which was omitted in 1441. And although 1441 does recall 687 (that does include those words), that resolution had to do with getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not getting the US into Iraq.

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Nice job smearing the United States for pointing out the truth... Are you a blame America first type of person?

That's not smearing the US.

Smearing the US is:

• supporting un-provoked, armed aggression on a country of goat-herders (that barely have running water and electricity) who didn't attack us first.
• attacking a sovereign nation in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is the Supreme Law of our Land.
• attacking a country based on lies and deceit.

That, is smearing the US and everything this country stands for.

In answer to your question, "No" I am not.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Billo Really... What does "serious consequeces" mean to you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Billo Really... What does "serious consequeces" mean to you?

It means the matter should be referred back to the Security Council to decide what those "consequences" shall be.

Remember, 1441 ended by saying the UNSC "remains seized on the matter", which means they reserve the right to jurisdiction over what happens next. In other words, it's their call. Not Bush's!

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Did countries in the U.N. Security Council get a pass when it came to the Oil For Food Scandal?

Absolutely - look at France, Russia, Belgium, Germany and China for instance. All signed the various UNSC Resolutions during the 12+ years, and yet sold Iraq weapons, weapons systems and technology.

Why do you think they all didn't want the US to invade Iraq :doh

Saddam owed them Billions of USD, and they were more interested in getting their "Blood money" than in the welfare of the Iraqi citizens.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

You need to define what getting a pass means.

The entire SC was briefed every year on where the money was being spent and nothing was said for years until the US started a smear campaign because we could not get UNSC support to authorize an invasion of Iraq.

Tisk, tisk - a little testy are you :doh

Exactly where did we start a "smear" campaign ??? Where is your proof :roll:

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Isn't it interesting how all the countries in the UNSC voted for the resolution (1441) and then when it came to enforcing the resolution (1441), they didn't want to anymore?

Nice job smearing the United States for pointing out the truth... Are you a blame America first type of person?

The reasons why certain member countries of the UNSC didn't want us in there is stated in my first response to this thread.

And I would conclude that your last comment to Billo_Really is accurate.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Isn't the US one of those countries?

One of those countries "What" - would you please finish your statement / question ?????

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
Tisk, tisk - a little testy are you

Exactly where did we start a "smear" campaign ???

Statements regarding the UN are common knowledge. There are even threads in this forum devoted to trashing the UN. Don't play dumb!

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
Where is your proof

Two words: John Bolton!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Nice job smearing the United States for pointing out the truth... Are you a blame America first type of person?

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
And I would conclude that your last comment to Billo_Really is accurate.

What do you have against truth?

Did you know, being against truth, is NOT the American way?

With that in mind, how can you possibly be a "Fiercely Proud American", when engaging in un-American activities?

Truth, Justice and the American Way are synonymous for a reason!

 

[conserv.pat15]

What do you have against truth?

Did you know, being against truth, is NOT the American way?

With that in mind, how can you possibly be a "Fiercely Proud American", when engaging in un-American activities?

Truth, Justice and the American Way are synonymous for a reason!

The United States pointed out the truth about the Oil For Food scandal. Then you claimed that the United States used a smear campaign.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Billo_Really:

1441 did not authorize the use of force. When the UNSC authorizes force, they do so by including the verbage, "...use all necessary means", which was omitted in 1441. And although 1441 does recall 687 (that does include those words), that resolution had to do with getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not getting the US into Iraq.

And pray tell - why didn't UNSC 1441 include the actual consequesces ????

Please tell me you remember the fight we had with France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China on this one.

Remember this portion - which we had to agree with in order to get 1441 passed:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

That's as far as the paper-tieger UN was will to go - always all mouth and no teeth.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

It means the matter should be referred back to the Security Council to decide what those "consequences" shall be.

Remember, 1441 ended by saying the UNSC "remains seized on the matter", which means they reserve the right to jurisdiction over what happens next. In other words, it's their call. Not Bush's!

And just what in your considered opinion would the UN have done ?????

How long did it take them to finally pass the watered down version of 1441 ?????

And when it comes to the security of the United States, when do we have to ask permission to protect ourselves ???

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Billo_Really:

Statements regarding the UN are common knowledge. There are even threads in this forum devoted to trashing the UN. Don't play dumb!

Since I am new here and havent gone through all the threads, perhaps, you'd like to retract your claws and not get insulting - I mean this is supposed to be a debate right ?????

Two words: John Bolton!

And just what does Bolton have to do with the "Oil for Food" scandal ???

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
And just what in your considered opinion would the UN have done ?????

My opinion at this time, is moot.

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American[/I
How long did it take them to finally pass the watered down version of 1441 ?????

Dunno...

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American[/I
And when it comes to the security of the United States, when do we have to ask permission to protect ourselves ???

We don't need anyone's permission when it comes to an iminant threat!
Which Iraq was far from.

I've said this before, and I will say this again,
"Anyone who thinks Iraq was a threat to the United States either has a specific agenda they are trying to manifest or they are the biggest ***** on the planet!"

I for one, am not chicken-little. The sky was not falling. There was no need to rush to war resulting in a half million deaths (3000 of which were ours).

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

What do you have against truth?

Did you know, being against truth, is NOT the American way?

With that in mind, how can you possibly be a "Fiercely Proud American", when engaging in un-American activities?

Truth, Justice and the American Way are synonymous for a reason!

I have absolutely nothing against the truth.

Since I have served in the military and been in combat - while you stayed home and filed your "Liberal" fingernails - perhaps you should reconsider challenging my patriotism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
I have absolutely nothing against the truth.

Then why did you agree with conserv.pat15?

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
Since I have served in the military and been in combat -

Then you served our country far better than I ever could.

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
while you stayed home and filed your "Liberal" fingernails

I have never filed a fingernail to liberal mantra's.

Originally posted by Fiercely Proud American
- perhaps you should reconsider challenging my patriotism

Perhaps you should find out who Thomas Paine was.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

One of those countries "What" - would you please finish your statement / question ?????

Here's the context

Did countries in the U.N. Security Council get a pass when it came to the Oil For Food Scandal?

Isn't the US one of those countries?

Hope that helps.
I'm asking isn't the US one of those coujntries in the USNC that got a pass when it came to the Oil For Food Scandal?

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

The United States pointed out the truth about the Oil For Food scandal. Then you claimed that the United States used a smear campaign.

Well, that's the way of the DemLibSocs, so I would conclude that it is to be expected. It's okay for them to point out what they feel is wrong (without providing a viable, reasonable and intelligent solution), but not for others - go figure.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Billo_Really:

My opinion at this time, is moot.

Why so ?? Or is it that you would have done what the UN has always done – nothing of any consequence.

Dunno...

Now who’s playing dumb ??

We don't need anyone's permission when it comes to an iminant threat!
Which Iraq was far from.

So say you

I've said this before, and I will say this again,
"Anyone who thinks Iraq was a threat to the United States either has a specific agenda they are trying to manifest or they are the biggest ***** on the planet!"

Okay, so would you care to comment on these ???

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

And, in case you are wondering I have pages and pages more of similar comments.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Billo_Really:

Then why did you agree with conserv.pat15?

Simply because he stated a truthful fact

Then you served our country far better than I ever could.

Obviously

Perhaps you should find out who Thomas Paine was.

I already know who Thomas Paine was – perhaps you should consider Benedict Arnold

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

Simon W. Moon:

Hope that helps.
I'm asking isn't the US one of those coujntries in the USNC that got a pass when it came to the Oil For Food Scandal?

Thank you for explaining your comment.

Although the USA is a permanent member of the UNSC, we did not violate the 12+ years of UNSC Resolutions imposing sanctions on Iraq - so the answer to your question would be NO.