livendive 8 #26 February 3, 2005 QuoteI 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. If the reports turn out to be true, pointing at Clinton and saying "Hey, he started it" is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #27 February 3, 2005 QuoteLikewise...please refresh my memory as to how Bush created this issue? Why do debates in this forum so often come down to splitting hairs about words used? Fact is, if the story is true, Bush (and Clinton before him) have been presiding over a government that has preached one thing whilst doing another. Bush didn't create the issue, but since when does that mean he isn't responsible for it continuing whilst he is POTUS? This revelation is made even more damming when you consider the venom with which the Bush camp has been smearing the UN in recent times. Doesn't it bother you when you find out the people you trust to run your country are bullshitting you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #28 February 3, 2005 QuoteDoesn't it bother you when you find out the people you trust to run your country are bullshitting you? I'm sure it would, should it be proved that my government was "bullshitting" us. However, imho, that hasn't happened, so I am not going to count that particular chicken. To the issue at hand. There has been no doubt that recent administrations have viewed Iraq as a rogue governement that could potentially be very, very dangerous - not simply to the US, but to the entire region. Because of that, I see no issue in shoring up potential allies, as recent history has shown that we must have allies in the region to be able to help pressure - or indeed allow bases, should the need arise - the state which poses a significant danger. It's part of the political process, and part of the landscape of backscratching, that has gone on since time immemorial. Thusly I understand the decision to "look the other way," again not agreeing with it. If I found that Bush took bribes, as indeed has been shown in the UN, or that high level, decision makers/policy designers were lining their personal pockets with bribes from SH/Iraq, then indeed I'd be beyond furious. However, that is not what the article alleges, nor have the allegations contained in the article been backed by additional sources. What differentiates the UN actions and the US's potential blind-eye-ing is that votes regarding sactions/actions were seemingly bought directly from Iraq, with OFF money, whereas the US looked the other way to allow those who we would need in case of problematic action in the region continuing on their economic path. To me, this constitutes a huge difference, although I will allow that others will not see it the same way, nor even similarly. That is, at least as it stands now, my understanding of the situation, and the reasoning behind it. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #29 February 3, 2005 I understand your position, but you focus on a different area than I. The main worry I had about the UN oil for food issue is that it gave Sadam between 1.7 and 4.4 billion $ to buy and build weapons and pay his army. That money must directly equate to the volume of death an mutilation suffered by out troops. Now I hear there's a possability that a blind eye was turned to Sadam getting as much as 13.7 billion... well that doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I'm interested to see how this pans out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #30 February 3, 2005 What I'm amazed at is that before this relevation came to light, the anti-UN folk were banging their fists on the table saying "See?, SEE?!? The UN IS worthless." But now, the minute it seems like the US was involved, all I see is a line of apologists hand-wringing about national security. It's an interesting study of the biases people have, and the lines they're willing to parrot. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #31 February 3, 2005 Quote...The UN IS worthless." Yes, yes they are... but not just due to OFF... But in this case it goes to a question of intent... the US let some of this go on to help some key allies with some basic economic needs... In the UN's case it was either from lack of oversight, or for personal enrichment. Are there some US companies and individuals who did it for personal enrichment? I'm sure there are, but that is different than the US governement materially participating in it. And if you look at who from the governement is squaking about the UN and OFF, its not the administration, its congress, and probably not perople who saw these reports (although I don't know that). Who didn't know SH was smuggling oil? The scandle is that it appears UN staff were getting rich off it. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #32 February 4, 2005 Quote"See?, SEE?!? The UN IS worthless." I have banged my fingers on the keyboard, but my opinion of the UN's worth (or lack thereof) did not come from the OFF. I've long held they were about as effective as a paper tiger, and they've done nothing recently to change my mind; rather, recent certain actions have supported my position wholly. As to the specific topic, what JDHill said is accurate. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #33 February 4, 2005 QuoteI've long held they were about as effective as a paper tiger, and they've done nothing recently to change my mind; rather, recent certain actions have supported my position wholly. Have you actually tried to find out what the UN does in regard to health, children, refugees etc.? I think a lot of people in the third world who owe their live to UN programs would disagree. Also, hvae you ever gone through the effort to review the number of successful peace keeping missions the UN has performed since WW2 (of which several are still ongoing). Me thinks that the UN bashing in the US is motivated by a policy to condition the population for a much more unilateral and aggressive foreign policy.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #34 February 4, 2005 "Me thinks that the UN bashing in the US is motivated by a policy to condition the population for a much more unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. " I agree with you Mikkey, but the Oil for Food scandal has not done the UN's cause any good whatsoever. I, like you, have high hopes for the UN. I just wish people would realise that the OFF scandal involves individuals, not the entire organisation.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #35 February 4, 2005 QuoteI just wish people would realise that the OFF scandal involves individuals, not the entire organisation. Exactly, with Kofi announcing today he will punish the UN employee responsible for the OFF program based on an interim report by a committee investigating the program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #36 February 4, 2005 QuoteMe thinks that the UN bashing in the US is motivated by a policy to condition the population for a much more unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. I think you're absolutely right, and it isn't particularly new, either. The US Congress has done more over the last few decades to subvert the power of the UN to be an effective multilateral organization than anyone else, primarily through holding back their agreed to fundings. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 February 4, 2005 I guess I need a little clarification on this... What is the moral difference between allowing something bad to happen because it's best for you personally, and allowing something bad to happen because it's best for your country? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #38 February 4, 2005 Its not a question of morals, but ethics... under the utilitarian theory of ethics, turning ones head to the sale to those particular countries served a greater good, and therefore could be considered ethical... the personal enrichment bunch's activities served the individual and the dictator, to the detriment of the greater good, and therefore could be considered unethical... And if you want to go to the legal question, the US government has not be shown to have participated in or facilitated any of these sales, therefore did not violate the sanctions... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #39 February 4, 2005 Quoteunder the utilitarian theory of ethics, turning ones head to the sale to those particular countries served a greater good, and therefore could be considered ethical... Does it still serve the greater good if SH used the profits to acquire WMDs? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 February 4, 2005 QuoteDoes it still serve the greater good if SH used the profits to acquire WMDs? sure, because the subsequent invasion has been a great windfall for Haliburton....which keeps the VP happy, which is really the guy with the brains in the current outfit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #41 February 4, 2005 QuoteDoes it still serve the greater good if SH used the profits to acquire WMDs? Well, since it appears he didn't, its kinda a meaningless question... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #42 February 4, 2005 Quotewindfall for Haliburton....which keeps the VP happy Why don't you guys give this up? It really is a waste of bandwith... Chenny gets his deferred pay no matter how well Halliburton does (short of going out of business, which is unlikey even without governemnt contracts)... I work around Halliburton people all day long, and none of them could give a shit of what the VP wants. Hell, there are people in the forums that work for Halliburton, and I doubt they think about how the VP of the US wants act (since the are not from the US, and the big fact that he has no influence over the company)All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #43 February 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoes it still serve the greater good if SH used the profits to acquire WMDs? Well, since it appears he didn't, its kinda a meaningless question... Ethical decisions are not subject to revision after the fact. A choice made is either wrong or right at the time it is made and remains so forever after. It appears to me that rather than applying the principles of utilitarianism to this decision, we went with egoism and just lucked out that it turned out to serve the greater good. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #44 February 4, 2005 Quoteand just lucked out that it turned out to serve the greater good. Is there any evidence that it served the greater good? (maybe if the sanctions had been more effective SH might have behaved differently.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #45 February 4, 2005 QuoteDoes it still serve the greater good if SH used the profits to acquire WMDs? IMO they don't even have to be WMD's... plenty of our guys are dying from ordinary weapons that this $13 billion could have bought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #46 February 4, 2005 Quoteunder the utilitarian theory of ethics, turning ones head to the sale to those particular countries served a greater good, and therefore could be considered ethical.. I strongly disagree. Or it would mean that torture can be ethical. Useful, maybe, but not ethical... Unless I am really misunderstanding the meaning of the term. "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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #47 February 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteand just lucked out that it turned out to serve the greater good. Is there any evidence that it served the greater good? (maybe if the sanctions had been more effective SH might have behaved differently.) I thought the same thing after I posted that. If the reports are true, then we were undermining the sanctions through complacence if nothing else, and thus bolstering the ego of a known egomaniac. It stands to reason that the money he was gaining under this arrangement made him less likely to acquiesce, so I'm not sure we can say that the outcome was for the greater good. It's possible that the greater good for us and everyone else involved would have best been served by us simply giving money to the Jordanians et al. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #48 February 4, 2005 Quotewe went with egoism I'm sure the possible uses of the money was a factor in the decision... but the risk was outweighed by the benefits to our allies, as well as our own. Just because it benefitted our interests does not make it egoism. Like I said before, who didn't know he was smuggling? I'm sure there are other countries that made similar decisions... its kinda like selective prosecution, who is the bigger threat to the world, Jordan or Syria? Utlimatley, if the program was being administed and supervised by the UN properly, the sales would not have been possible in the first place. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #49 February 4, 2005 Something can be ethical, but also illegal. So yes, torture could be ethical, but it would still be against the law, creating an ethical dilemma... not break the law and avoid the personal consequences, or put a gun to the prisoner's head and gain info that prevents an ambush, and suffer the personal consequesnces (real case). JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 February 4, 2005 QuoteWhy don't you guys give this up? It really is a waste of bandwith... Chenny gets his deferred pay no matter how well Halliburton does (short of going out of business, which is unlikey even without governemnt contracts)... It was a joke buddy, relax, take a couple of deep breaths, it will all be okay..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
