Oil for Food scandal

[Bingo]

As the Oil for Food scandal continues to beat on has anyone changed their minds about the UN, and the U.S.'s refusal to wait for consent to go into Iraq? It sure seems more and more likely that an agreement wasn't possible under the weight of the scandals that plagued the organization.

Not asking anyone to change their opinion on the war itself, I think that rug has been flogged to death ... but was UN agreement even feasible?

[arsenal]

Not a chance. The as long as those nations with Veto power, ignore what is set for the by UN, they will never ever be able to get anything done.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

IMO the scandle is a load of garbage. Companies from which country got the most vouchers? The United States. Companies from which country profitted the most from the program? The United States. The only thing the United States didn't do was be the one getting the most bribes. They keep their participation in the program very quiet, and still do. Yes, there were some awfully shady dealings that took place, but guess what, shady dealings take place all the time (right Halliburton/Dick Cheney?). I hope that those that got caight in the kick-back scheme take it in the kiester just like the Enron execs did. But to suggest that the UN program, which was winding down to its final days, was a reason why other countries did not back the invasion of Iraq, well that's just grasping at straws for another lame reason to justify an illegal military action.

[Looger]

the only shocker for me is that this many people see malfeasance where it's standard operating procedure for the american machine.

nicaragua, early 80s for example.

this is nothing new.

[Bingo]

Hey I never called the US innocent in this ... but the bottom line is that the US went in.

If they vetoed say a German wish to enter Iraq on the quiet basis of not wanting to end their gravy train than you'd have a point.

Fact is they went it.

France, especially, seems to be the opposite, making one think that they could never have gotten a fair shake from the United Nations regardless of evidence or the number of resolutions laid down by the body. It wasn't going to happen.

And since you brought up American involvement? The man that seems to have had his mitts the deepest into the pie?

Marc Rich ... the guy pardoned by Clinton on his last days in office.

ABC: American Involvment

[Looger]

sorry bingo, didn't mean you.

i meant the left-wing wackos that see george dubya as some new thing, with new policies.

it ain't that new.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo@Dec 2 2004, 11:32 AM
As the Oil for Food scandal continues to beat on has anyone changed their minds about the UN, and the U.S.'s refusal to wait for consent to go into Iraq? It sure seems more and more likely that an agreement wasn't possible under the weight of the scandals that plagued the organization.

Not asking anyone to change their opinion on the war itself, I think that rug has been flogged to death ... but was UN agreement even feasible?

The only people who are going to change their minds about the US's refusal to wait based on these developments are those that felt that the US faced a genuine threat from Iraq that necessitated an invasion, but also felt that it should only be waged with UN approval.

Since I never felt that there was a credible threat to the US from Iraq, the fact that the UN may never have agreed doesn't change my opinion over their choice to invade unilaterally.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Dec 2 2004, 11:32 AM
As the Oil for Food scandal continues to beat on has anyone changed their minds about the UN, and the U.S.'s refusal to wait for consent to go into Iraq? It sure seems more and more likely that an agreement wasn't possible under the weight of the scandals that plagued the organization.

Not asking anyone to change their opinion on the war itself, I think that rug has been flogged to death ... but was UN agreement even feasible?

The only people who are going to change their minds about the US's refusal to wait based on these developments are those that felt that the US faced a genuine threat from Iraq that necessitated an invasion, but also felt that it should only be waged with UN approval.

Since I never felt that there was a credible threat to the US from Iraq, the fact that the UN may never have agreed doesn't change my opinion over their choice to invade unilaterally. [/b][/quote]
Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.

That was a pretty good sized camp.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Dec 2 2004, 08:57 PM

Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.

That was a pretty good sized camp.

And I don't see any connection between the two. I highly doubt that the security council members had little or anything to do with the oil-for-food program. The number of people involved at the UN is pretty significant, especially for the security council members. The UN ambassador does not oversee not have final say on every decision. To me it would be like blaming your communications manager for a problem in HR. I just don't see how the oil-for-food program, corrupt or not, would have any bearing what so ever on the decisions of the security council, especially if the intelligence presented was as damaning as the US tried to imply it was. No change because I don't believe it has any bearing.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+Dec 2 2004, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Dec 2 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM

The only people who are going to change their minds about the US's refusal to wait based on these developments are those that felt that the US faced a genuine threat from Iraq that necessitated an invasion, but also felt that it should only be waged with UN approval.

Since I never felt that there was a credible threat to the US from Iraq, the fact that the UN may never have agreed doesn't change my opinion over their choice to invade unilaterally.

Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.

That was a pretty good sized camp. [/b][/quote]
What was that camp saying?

I was amongst those saying that the war would have been ill advised but acceptable with a real coalition and UN approval. But then it is only because the UN has the right to approve the invasion of a soverign nation in order to have it's orders enforced, not because it would have legitimized the supposed threat to the US.

I just assumed most other opponents felt that way too, rather than feeling that the threat was real but consent was still needed

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Dec 2 2004, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Dec 2 2004, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Dec 2 2004, 08:57 PM

Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.

That was a pretty good sized camp.

And I don't see any connection between the two. I highly doubt that the security council members had little or anything to do with the oil-for-food program. The number of people involved at the UN is pretty significant, especially for the security council members. The UN ambassador does not oversee not have final say on every decision. To me it would be like blaming your communications manager for a problem in HR. I just don't see how the oil-for-food program, corrupt or not, would have any bearing what so ever on the decisions of the security council, especially if the intelligence presented was as damaning as the US tried to imply it was. No change because I don't believe it has any bearing. [/b][/quote]
I think it's a very real factor.

You don't think the UN representative for France would be listening to Chirac, who himself may be knee deep in the scandal and holding on to his immunity to avoid prosecution?

Huge issue.

And that's the obvious one.

Russia and Germany had economic ties that would at very least be a factor in their decision to avoid regime change and their meal ticket from Iraq. The people on the council clearly act on direction from home, and if that direction is to block a UN invasion to keep the money flowing in than they are compromised.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Anything is possible Bingo. I do like how this massive international conspiracy is believable, but the mention of wrong doing on the American government's part in fabricating evidence and in the dealings with Halliburton are quickly put down as being conspiracy theoristic fantasy. Interesting dichotomy there.

Also, you don't say how the termination of the program would affect this since the whole thing was in its final weeks. Really, how would that after affected anything? I still do not see a connection to anything. How hard is it to admit that the rest of the world looked at the evidence and said it did not support an invasion of a country who was not guilty of what they were being charged with?

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Dec 2 2004, 04:29 PM
Anything is possible Bingo. I do like how this massive international conspiracy is believable, but the mention of wrong doing on the American government's part in fabricating evidence and in the dealings with Halliburton are quickly put down as being conspiracy theoristic fantasy. Interesting dichotomy there.

Also, you don't say how the termination of the program would affect this since the whole thing was in its final weeks. Really, how would that after affected anything? I still do not see a connection to anything. How hard is it to admit that the rest of the world looked at the evidence and said it did not support an invasion of a country who was not guilty of what they were being charged with?

Not my dichotomy ...

I pretty much left this alone until it just kept hitting the media, and person after person was added to the mix.

A conspiracy quickly turns into an investigation when rumour and heresay get replaced by calls for UN resignations, a US President asking for an inquiry and French pundits discussing Chirac going to jail when he leaves office.

I think you'll find I'm very consistent in being somewhat reluctant to jump into these things when they don't seem to be more than wishful thinking by ideologs. And that goes both ways.

Termination Issue:

More than just money involved in this. Don't you think some fairly powerful people in these countries might be somewhat nervous about a US force getting their hands on files linking them to the scandal in the first place? Who could say what type of records the Iraq regime had, and what that would do their future dealings.

I'm not calling it done ... but it is a very big variable in the issue about unilateral movement against Iraq.

[Pileon]

I think the whole scandal underscores the need for reform at the UN. I think the whole organization could be made more democratic. How long has Kofi Annan been at the helm?

I feel the UN needs a better mandate - promoting human rights, democracy, open markets - and needs a better commitment from its members. Unilateralism is no better or worse than endless debate. If the organization is to be a viable force in the world, it has to stand for something more definite and have the power to enforce. The member states have to believe in the mandate and there has to be some way of being more inclusive and breaking the logjam that is the security council. As it is constituted right now, the UN is just another place to practice power politics and provide lip service to meaningful issues that face the entire world.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Evidently Kofi Annan's son is neck deep in this thing.

That's not good.