US Condoned Iraq Oil smuggling...

[Frenchy68 0]

Hmmm...
If this ends up being true, things could become interesting...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[skydyvr 0]

Yea what's this, the US acting in it's own best interests?

Bastards!

. . =(_8^(1)

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Yea what's this, the US acting in it's own best interests?

Are you then telling me that there was nothing wrong with other countries/individuals/organizations doing the same? It's all cool then, no big deal?
Keeewwwl!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[EricTheRed 0]

Refer to the

"can you trust the UN" thread for my thoughts on this.

Not a surprise.

Humans (not all of course) will lie, cheat and steal whenever it's percieved to be in their best interest. To deny this is to ignore nearly every bit of known history.

illegible usually

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Are you then telling me that there was nothing wrong with other countries/individuals/organizations doing the same? It's all cool then, no big deal?

Of course not.

When I drive too fast, it is because I'm in a hurry and need to get somewhere now. When you drive too fast, it is because you are insane and don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

. . =(_8^(1)

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Are you then telling me that there was nothing wrong with other countries/individuals/organizations doing the same? It's all cool then, no big deal?

Of course not.

When I drive too fast, it is because I'm in a hurry and need to get somewhere now. When you drive too fast, it is because you are insane and don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

Affirmative

The theory of "Do as i say, Not do as i do"

Happens all the time, or so I've been told

R.I.P.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.

The unclassified State Department documents sent to congressional committees with oversight of U.S. foreign policy divulge that the United States deemed such sales to be in the "national interest," even though they generated billions of dollars in unmonitored revenue for Saddam's regime.

...

Quote

Estimates of how much revenue Iraq earned from these tolerated side sales of its oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as to Syria and Egypt, range from $5.7 billion to $13.6 billion.

This illicit revenue far exceeds the estimates of what Saddam pocketed through illegal surcharges on his U.N.-approved oil exports and illegal kickbacks on subsequent Iraqi purchases of food, medicine, and supplies -- $1.7 billion to $4.4 billion -- during the maligned seven-year U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq.

Is anyone left in any doubt that Bush and his pals are a corrupt bunch of two-faced wankers?

[jazzjumper 0]

LMFAO....so what should we have done...let the UN say "Stop, or well say stop again!" for the 15th time? So what if the US did nothing and got something for it? What would the alternative been, come out and condem it (like that does anyhting?)

Seriously, if you think that this news changes anything, you are truly grasping at straws.

Now if US government officials had profitted monitarily through this (like a whole lot of UN officials did), then you'd have an arguement.

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Now if US government officials had profitted monitarily through this

You don't know if they did or not remember... the CIA removed the names of US individuals and companies involved before it released the document that named those in the UN.

US citezens were involved... your govt. simply wont tell you who they are.

Besides - I thought the big worry about the money arising out of the UN project was that Sadam could have used it to buy weapons... now we see that he could have bought many times those weapons from the money he got from this source... why is this source not also bad?

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

You don't know if they did or not remember... the CIA removed the names of US individuals and companies involved before it released the document that named those in the UN.

So the nature of the charge outweighs the evidence? I'm still not convinced. I'm in that arena, and if someone discovered US citizens making a personal profit, you can better believe somone close to the source documents would have leaked them. It happens all the time.

Names are purged to protect peoples' positions...not to cover up illegal wrongdoing. Now, could it happen? Yes, but trust me, it would have leaked out months ago if there was personal profitable involvement.

However, this just gives the ranting conspiracy theorists something else to rage against.

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Are you saying that US names were not removed from the report on the oil for food scandal?

Try the link below. Othe nationalities were condemned by the US on the evidence in the report alone... why should you also not get to hear about what your on nationals are up to? Why the double standard?

Who's on the original of that list? Is Kerry there? Is Bush? Are you supposed to be on it? I don't know - the CIA doctored it.

What involvement did they have? Exact same involvement as the rest of the people on the list - if the rest of the list is worthy of criticism so are the US individuals... I simply don't get the double standard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16201-2004Oct7.html

[crozby 0]

Quote

Now if US government officials had profitted monitarily through this (like a whole lot of UN officials did), then you'd have an arguement.

Let me just repeat the bit that you obviously didn't read before penning that response:

Quote

Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Now if US government officials had profitted monitarily through this (like a whole lot of UN officials did), then you'd have an arguement.

Let me just repeat the bit that you obviously didn't read before penning that response:

Quote

Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

First off, lets apply the same standard to CNN the lefties like to apply to Fox News. First, I would hardly call CNN an unbiased source. Second, why am I not hearing this story anywhere but CNN? Third, lets not forget how far CNN, CBS etc. will go to smear the US. (Dan Rather ring a bell)? Fourth, since this began (if true) during Clintons term, why are you just bashing Bush?

[mr2mk1g 10]

I suspect he mentioned Bush because if this story turns out to be correct, Bush et al criticized the UN for allowing Sadam to get hold of 1.7 billion... while the US administration (both Clinton and continuing under Bush) allowed Sadam to get hold of far far more $$... if the story is true of course.

He used the phrase "two faced"... if the story is true I would tend to agree that someone who criticizes another for doing what they themselves were doing, could be termed "two faced"... but that's just how I read his comments.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Most of us who have been on this site for a while will agree with me when I say that stories like this appear all the time and are later found to be bogus. Those who want to blindly believe CNN without confirmation from other sources do so at their own risk of embarassment. I'm not suggesting the story is either true or not true. I'm just applying the same rules of proof some of us have learned over the years.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I certainly wouldn't criticize you for doing so... it is the only wise course of action in such circumstances.

I would merely echo Frenchy’s comment at the start of this thread: If it turns out to be true... things could become interesting - regardless of which side of the argument one would like to place oneself.

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

Quote

Now if US government officials had profitted monitarily through this (like a whole lot of UN officials did), then you'd have an arguement.

Let me just repeat the bit that you obviously didn't read before penning that response:

Quote

Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

Nope, I read it all, and I stand by what I "penned". There is a diffence between a government official receiving $ under the table for personal use and the government knowing about and condonning the oil sales. You can split hairs, but what I wrote I wrote literally.

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[Michele 1]

Quote

Fourth, since this began (if true) during Clintons term, why are you just bashing Bush?

That was my thought when I read the article yesterday. LOL, I was wondering when that would be brought up here...and who would bring it up.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[KevinMcGuire 0]

I wondered my self how this can be a Bush issue when he was only in office 9 months before 9-11.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I wondered my self how this can be a Bush issue when he was only in office 9 months before 9-11

Sorry... refresh my memory... what did Sadam have to do with 9-11 ?

[Michele 1]

Quote

Sorry... refresh my memory...

Likewise...please refresh my memory as to how Bush created this issue?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mr2mk1g 10]

I never ever indicated that he did!

Nor did anyone else here for that matter. One person indicated that they felt he was "two-faced" (amungst other terms... I can't exactly be held accountable for another's comments though).

I already pointed out above why the "two-faced" comment may well be an relatively appropriate term should this article prove to be correct.

[Michele 1]

Ah. All right, then. I was just trying to stay on topic.

I just find it fascinating that people lay this on Bush's doorstep, when it (should it prove true) be something that started well before his election. Calling someone two-faced (not that you did) because of something someone else did is simply ridiculous, and tends to point out the poster's views more than discuss the issue at hand.

I can, despite it being during Clinton's admin, understand why it might have been done. Do I agree with it? No, but I can understand the thinking/reasoning behind it.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Frenchy68 0]

Once again, assuming that the article is factual:
What bothers me in the situation is not whether Clinton or Bush is responsible. Although I may not agree with it, I understand that sometimes "National Interest" may lead an administration to conduct itself in ways that defies certain values. All countries do it. What bothers me was how quickly, when the Oil for Food scandal broke out, some people took the moral high grounds and started pointing fingers at others. Not only on this forum, but in many parts of the world. I may be overly cynical, but I am still to meet someone who's conscience is pure and hasn't been soiled ever. And that should apply to administrations, countries, organizations, etc... In my very humble Frenchised opinion.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I just find it fascinating that people lay this on Bush's doorstep

That's not quite what's happened just yet... although I don't doubt it will happen if the thread continues given the level of feelings people have about him.

Quote

Calling someone two-faced (not that you did) because of something someone else did is simply ridiculous,

Well I don't pretend to know for sure why Crozby said Bush was two faced, (although I suspect you may be right about it being indicative of his general views about Bush more than anything else), I can at least see why that could indeed be an apropriate term under these circumstances.

If this article is correct, what is complained of started under Clinton and continued under Bush. Bush's administration then heavily criticised the UN for allowing funds to reach Sadam... while on the other hand his own administration allowed many more times that figure to reach Sadam though other routes.

Sounds a little two faced to me... should this all turn out to be true of course... which is yet to be seen.