Oil for Food scam

[Lanny_MacDonald]

This is an article from another finge source so be be wary of the questionable source and the shoddy reporting.

Would you like fries with that?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 11 2004, 02:06 AM
This is an article from another finge source so be be wary of the questionable source and the shoddy reporting.

Would you like fries with that?

Oil for Food scam, The US not sqeeky clean...

Did someone say they were? It was apparent weeks ago USA firms and individuals were on a list of recipients.

Unlike the French, there do not seem to be government ministers involved.

[I]The proceeds may have been used by Mr. Hussein to pay for purchases of arms in violation of sanctions, the report says.[/I]

Good grief, are you agreeing Saddam was building an ongoing method for circumventing UN sanctions prohibited by UN resolutions?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Actually Cow, I posted this for those that like to believe that America was justified in invading Iraq because of the Oil for Food program. It seems that the perception was that America was getting shafted and that only European (French, German and Russian) countries were benefiting.

And no, I do not subscribe to the theory that Hussein was buying arms. If he was you can bet your ass that Dubya would have trotted them out by now to have some documented justification. I can see Hussein lining his pockets, but the theories floating around that he was buying arms (not justified by the weapons inspection reports) or that he was supporting al Qeada (a group that wanted to kill Hussein) just don't make sense.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I haven't seen a single person in this forum suggest the invasion was justified because of use of the oil for food program Lanny. Or are you saying Dick Cheney is a regular reader?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 11 2004, 03:40 AM

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale.


Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place.

pretty damned close dis.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 11 2004, 03:40 AM
I haven't seen a single person in this forum suggest the invasion was justified because of use of the oil for food program Lanny. Or are you saying Dick Cheney is a regular reader?

As CaramonLS points out Dis, it appears you infered that. If you didn't mean it that way, then I take that back, but it did appear that you were saying that was decent justification for the invasion.

Oh, and damn rights Dick Cheney reads this forum. Everyone comes here to get their daily dose of reality.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Oct 11 2004, 04:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Oct 11 2004, 04:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 11 2004, 03:40 AM

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale.


Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place.

pretty damned close dis. [/b][/quote]
No, for about the fifth time...it's not close at all. I'm getting tired of explaining it, but here it goes....one more time.

Look at the first part of my quote...."It might not be a legitimate rationale for going to war" just by reading that much it eliminates me as someone who has suggested what you guys are saying I suggested.

It's the second part that, for some reason that is a mystery to me, is so difficult for some to get a grasp on. That part is "but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place." This was to suggest, as previously explained, that Saddam knew he could play the governments of France and Russia in particular against the US.

Got it now?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 11 2004, 04:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 11 2004, 04:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

pretty damned close dis.

No, for about the fifth time...it's not close at all. I'm getting tired of explaining it, but here it goes....one more time.

Look at the first part of my quote...."It might not be a legitimate rationale for going to war" just by reading that much it eliminates me as someone who has suggested what you guys are saying I suggested.

It's the second part that, for some reason that is a mystery to me, is so difficult for some to get a grasp on. That part is "but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place." This was to suggest, as previously explained, that Saddam knew he could play the governments of France and Russia in particular against the US.

Got it now? [/b][/quote]
Ok its not a legit reason for going to war, but then you turn around and say it was a major reason for going to war? What in gods name are you trying to say? How can you still support the administration if you don't think its a legit reason for going to war, but they did it anyways.

but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place." This was to suggest, as previously explained, that Saddam knew he could play the governments of France and Russia in particular against the US.

Sorry France and Russia didn't invade a certain country. So did the US invade to spite these countries?

Sorry dis you cannot have it both ways, either its a total crack of sh*t reason for going to war and you don't beleive what Cheney is saying - Or it is a legit reason and you are sticking by Dick.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Amazing.

Saddam knew he could play France and Russia against the US. If the world had been able to show a united front (France and Russia not in Saddam's pocket) then Saddam would've been forced to comply with 1441.

That's what I'm saying, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with having it both ways or whatever you are trying to say.

You guys are having a very, very difficult time getting past your preconcieved notions about what I believe and who I support and for what I support them.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 10:26 PM
It's the second part that, for some reason that is a mystery to me, is so difficult for some to get a grasp on. That part is "but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place." This was to suggest, as previously explained, that Saddam knew he could play the governments of France and Russia in particular against the US.

Pardon me Displaced.. I'm a tad confused.. I still can't grasp how you're explaining away your comment. You must be confusing your own words, because that statement clear as day in my opinion, says that you feel that the abuses of the food for oil program was at least part of the rational.

As for saying that it's simply Saddam playing France and Russia against the US.. well I happen to feel that Bush was going to invade regardless of how Russia and France felt.. in fact.. that's exactly what happened. Playing two powers that aren't going to make a huge fuss against the US isn't a big deal, and its certainly not any explanation for going to war in Iraq.

Maybe I'm just some silly kid misinterpreting your comments, but I tend to think of myself as being at least somewhat well read, and I still don't see how your not using this as justification.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 10:35 PM
Amazing.

Saddam knew he could play France and Russia against the US. If the world had been able to show a united front (France and Russia not in Saddam's pocket) then Saddam would've been forced to comply with 1441.

That's what I'm saying, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with having it both ways or whatever you are trying to say.

You guys are having a very, very difficult time getting past your preconcieved notions about what I believe and who I support and for what I support them.

Russia and France agreeing with the US wasn't going to make Saddam do anything. Any increased sanctions or end of relief operations wasn't going to hurt Saddam, only the Iraqi people.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 04:38 AM

Pardon me Displaced.. I'm a tad confused.. I still can't grasp how you're explaining away your comment. You must be confusing your own words, because that statement clear as day in my opinion, says that you feel that the abuses of the food for oil program was at least part of the rational.

As for saying that it's simply Saddam playing France and Russia against the US.. well I happen to feel that Bush was going to invade regardless of how Russia and France felt.. in fact.. that's exactly what happened. Playing two powers that aren't going to make a huge fuss against the US isn't a big deal, and its certainly not any explanation for going to war in Iraq.

Maybe I'm just some silly kid misinterpreting your comments, but I tend to think of myself as being at least somewhat well read, and I still don't see how your not using this as justification.

I said, AGAIN, that it was not a legitimate rationale for going to war. So, no kermitology, I don't think (nor have I ever thought) that abuses of the Oil for Food program were legitimate reasons for invading Iraq. Why in God's name WOULD they be?

[kermitology]

Alrighty dis.. what EXACTLY is a major reason why the war happened in the first place.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology+Oct 11 2004, 04:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kermitology @ Oct 11 2004, 04:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 10:35 PM
Amazing.

Saddam knew he could play France and Russia against the US. If the world had been able to show a united front (France and Russia not in Saddam's pocket) then Saddam would've been forced to comply with 1441.

That's what I'm saying, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with having it both ways or whatever you are trying to say.

You guys are having a very, very difficult time getting past your preconcieved notions about what I believe and who I support and for what I support them.

Russia and France agreeing with the US wasn't going to make Saddam do anything. Any increased sanctions or end of relief operations wasn't going to hurt Saddam, only the Iraqi people. [/b][/quote]
That's fine, you don't have to agree with my opinion. But you DO have to quit accusing me of saying something I wasn't.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 04:42 AM
Alrighty dis.. what EXACTLY is a major reason why the war happened in the first place.

A reason for something HAPPENING is not the same as a rationale for taking action.

It's not my fault if you can't understand that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 04:38 AM


Maybe I'm just some silly kid misinterpreting your comments, but I tend to think of myself as being at least somewhat well read, and I still don't see how your not using this as justification.

I'll refer you back to my comment on preconceptions for your answer to that personal dilema you are having.

[CaramonLS]

Actually dis your wording must be somewhat off because there are a ton of people who really don't get what you are saying.

Should your Quote read something like this? (I'm not taking shots at you, just want to clarify your position).

"Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason The administration made the war happened in the first place - which is something I do not agree with."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 11 2004, 04:50 AM
Actually dis your wording must be somewhat off because there are a ton of people who really don't get what you are saying.

Should your Quote read something like this? (I'm not taking shots at you, just want to clarify your position).

"Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason The administration made the war happened in the first place - which is something I do not agree with."

No, that's not at all what I was trying to say. Maybe my thought wasn't worded in the best way, but I honestly can't think of another way to say it in one sentence.

My position is this....

1. The oil for food program is not a legitmate rationale for going to war. If the administration is using it as one now, I think it's pathetic. In the case that they knew about the abuses at the time it would seem to me that the people to go after would be the violating governments, not Iraq (and I'm not suggesting military action against France and Russia).

2. I believe that Saddam believed one of two things in relation to the circumvention of the OFF Program.

a. His relationship with the government officials involved in both countries would keep him out of harms way if he continued to defy the council.

b. Those relationship would keep the US from forming a united international front against him involving use of force and the US would be looked down upoin for any military action.

[kermitology]

BOLD - Displaced..
Italic - kermitology..

Saddam knew he could play France and Russia against the US. If the world had been able to show a united front (France and Russia not in Saddam's pocket) then Saddam would've been forced to comply with 1441.

Russia and France agreeing with the US wasn't going to make Saddam do anything. Any increased sanctions or end of relief operations wasn't going to hurt Saddam, only the Iraqi people.

That's fine, you don't have to agree with my opinion. But you DO have to quit accusing me of saying something I wasn't.

Accusing you of saying something you weren't? I don't believe I did that, I simply said that a united front meant nothing to Saddam. Any reprocussions imposed by say, the UN, mean nothing to Saddam, it wasn't going to hurt him, only the Iraqi people. That's all I said.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 10 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 10 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 04:38 AM


Maybe I'm just some silly kid misinterpreting your comments, but I tend to think of myself as being at least somewhat well read, and I still don't see how your not using this as justification.

I'll refer you back to my comment on preconceptions for your answer to that personal dilema you are having. [/b][/quote]
You'd be just as guilty of that..