Oil for Food scam

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 05:05 AM


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.

In your previous post kermitology. Stay with me here.

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.

or before that where you said....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.

[kermitology]

In my opinion, and I CLEARLY stated that, Displaced, it's not an accuastion, it's how I read your comments.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 05:06 AM

You'd be just as guilty of that..

and that has exactly what to do with this conversation?

[kermitology]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 10 2004, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 10 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 05:06 AM

You'd be just as guilty of that..

and that has exactly what to do with this conversation? [/b][/quote]

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

THAT is what it has to do with it.. You're such an angel..

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 11 2004, 05:09 AM
In my opinion, and I CLEARLY stated that, Displaced, it's not an accuastion, it's how I read your comments.

backtrack all you want kermit.

You were dogpiling me along with the rest, refusing to believe that there was any other explanation for my quote (including the correct linguistic explanation)except that I think using the OFF program violations as a rationale for going to war is AOK.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kermitology+Oct 11 2004, 05:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kermitology @ Oct 11 2004, 05:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

and that has exactly what to do with this conversation?

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

THAT is what it has to do with it.. You're such an angel.. [/b][/quote]
Huh? LMAO. No idea what you're trying to say there.

[calculoso]

Guys... calm down.

I think I understand Dis because I seem to have the same viewpoint.

First, the Oil for Food program was not a valid reason for going to war.

Second the Oil for Food program was a reason the war happened.

I'll try to explain. If the Oil for Food program didn't exist, Saddam doesn't have govenments trying to prevent the war. This results in more pressure on Saddam to disarm and *prove* he is disarming, instead of just playing the nice little game he was playing.

Without the Oil for Food program, the entire UN security council is on-side with pressuring Saddam. With the Oil for Food program, there are members of the UN security council who fight pressuring Saddam.

Without the Oil for Food program, any action would be a UN action. With the Oil for Food program, the action was a US/UK action WITH OTHER REASONS FOR GOING.

To summarize, although I fear I haven't done a good job explaining my thoughts, the Oil for Food program was not a reason that the US/UK went into Iraq, but it was a reason why there was a possibility for war in the first place. Big distinction between the two.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by calculoso@Oct 11 2004, 05:19 PM
Guys... calm down.

I think I understand Dis because I seem to have the same viewpoint.

First, the Oil for Food program was not a valid reason for going to war.

Second the Oil for Food program was a reason the war happened.

I'll try to explain. If the Oil for Food program didn't exist, Saddam doesn't have govenments trying to prevent the war. This results in more pressure on Saddam to disarm and *prove* he is disarming, instead of just playing the nice little game he was playing.

Without the Oil for Food program, the entire UN security council is on-side with pressuring Saddam. With the Oil for Food program, there are members of the UN security council who fight pressuring Saddam.

Without the Oil for Food program, any action would be a UN action. With the Oil for Food program, the action was a US/UK action WITH OTHER REASONS FOR GOING.

To summarize, although I fear I haven't done a good job explaining my thoughts, the Oil for Food program was not a reason that the US/UK went into Iraq, but it was a reason why there was a possibility for war in the first place. Big distinction between the two.

2 things about this whole argument.

1. The "Oil for Food" program was a major cause for the war is akin to saying Iraq's massive oil reserves are a major cause of the war. If Iraq had no reserves and was a dump, say, like Somalia, I doubt it would ever have been taken over.

2. Oil for Food was not instigated by Iraq, it was created with the aquiescence of all the major powers, because (surprise) they didn't mind continuing to receive Iraqi oil shipments, despite the sanctions. Can't really blame Saddam for skimming billions, since the Western world didn't really give a crap where the cash went, they just wanted the oil. With even US businesses implicated in Oil for Food mishaps, it seems as though the corruption and enrichment of Saddam was accepted and encouraged by those he dealt with.

This whole thing started because Dis said that the Oil for Food Program was a 'major' cause of the war. As long as you are also willing to say that oil was a 'major' cause of the war, then you're right.

[FlamesAddiction]

I get it. It is like saying that Bush was not a "validation" for the war, but he is the reason the war the happened.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 11 2004, 11:37 AM
This whole thing started because Dis said that the Oil for Food Program was a 'major' cause of the war. As long as you are also willing to say that oil was a 'major' cause of the war, then you're right.

Prove it. I haven't seen anywhere that Dis has said anything other than what I said above... that (using other words, obviously) the Oil for Food program contributed to the war happening but was not the reason the war happened.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by calculoso@Oct 11 2004, 05:46 PM
Prove it. I haven't seen anywhere that Dis has said anything other than what I said above... that (using other words, obviously) the Oil for Food program contributed to the war happening but was not the reason the war happened.

Prove it? It's quoted above by Caramon in this thread. Did you read the thread? Has Caramon forged this quote? I don't think so, I recall when Dis said it.

All I quoted is what he said, that the Oil for Food Program was a 'major' cause of the war. If you've got a problem with that, talk to him, not me.

Whatever he meant by saying it (and I think he's somewhat explained that already), doesn't mean it wasn't said.

You have just claimed that the Oil for Food program 'contributed' to the war. Just like the presence of oil reserves in Iraq 'contributed' to the war? Right?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Something lost in this that I was hoping would not be lost was the fact that American corporations also profiteered from the Oil for Food scandal. I guess it doesn't matter that America was as bad (worse IMO since it was several large corporations who contributed to the President's election fund) as the next country and that they should also point the finger internally. I just don't see how anyone can justify the connection between this scandal and a need to invade. This is the weakest of all excuses I've heard yet, because there were so many countries willing to take advantage of the situation, including the United States.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Actually, Calculoso has said exactly what I was saying.

I said that OFF abuses were a major reason the war happened. I did not say they were the only reason, or the biggest reason. If you want to say strategic control of oil reserves is a major reason the war happened, go ahead. It doesn't invalidate what I said and it certainly doesn't turn what I said into a workable rationale for going to war like some are just dying to believe I said.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 11 2004, 06:05 PM
Something lost in this that I was hoping would not be lost was the fact that American corporations also profiteered from the Oil for Food scandal. I guess it doesn't matter that America was as bad (worse IMO since it was several large corporations who contributed to the President's election fund) as the next country and that they should also point the finger internally. I just don't see how anyone can justify the connection between this scandal and a need to invade. This is the weakest of all excuses I've heard yet, because there were so many countries willing to take advantage of the situation, including the United States.

So American abuses are worse because no government officials were involved?

And again, not one person in this forum has ever suggested it as a workable rationale for going to war. Do you want to start this all over again? Unbelievable.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 11 2004, 06:14 PM
Actually, Calculoso has said exactly what I was saying.

I said that OFF abuses were a major reason the war happened. I did not say they were the only reason, or the biggest reason. If you want to say strategic control of oil reserves is a major reason the war happened, go ahead. It doesn't invalidate what I said and it certainly doesn't turn what I said into a workable rationale for going to war like some are just dying to believe I said.

I guess you're missing the point or something.

Calculoso has required me to 'prove' your statement. I don't have to, Caramon already quoted what you said. Calculoso apparently doesn't believe that you said it. Do you believe you said it?

You've said OFF is a 'cause' of the war. By that same logic, Iraq's oil reserves were a 'cause' of the war. It would be strange if you just decided to pick and choose which of these were 'major' causes, but that' what you appear to be doing.

The oil/reserve thing is not meant to refute your point, its a characteristic of your theory. If you don't agree with it, well... then the OFF was NOT a 'major' cause of war. You can't have it both ways.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 11 2004, 06:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 11 2004, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 11 2004, 06:14 PM
Actually, Calculoso has said exactly what I was saying.#

I said that OFF abuses were a major reason the war happened.# I did not say they were the only reason, or the biggest reason.# If you want to say strategic control of oil reserves is a major reason the war happened, go ahead.# It doesn't invalidate what I said and it certainly doesn't turn what I said into a workable rationale for going to war like some are just dying to believe I said.

I guess you're missing the point or something.

Calculoso has required me to 'prove' your statement. I don't have to, Caramon already quoted what you said. Calculoso apparently doesn't believe that you said it. Do you believe you said it?

You've said OFF is a 'cause' of the war. By that same logic, Iraq's oil reserves were a 'cause' of the war. It would be strange if you just decided to pick and choose which of these were 'major' causes, but that' what you appear to be doing.

The oil/reserve thing is not meant to refute your point, its a characteristic of your theory. If you don't agree with it, well... then the OFF was NOT a 'major' cause of war. You can't have it both ways. [/b][/quote]
One was the subject of a thread in which I posted, one (and a plethora of other potential causes) wasn't. That's the difference.

Pretty simple.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 11 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 11 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 11 2004, 06:05 PM
Something lost in this that I was hoping would not be lost was the fact that American corporations also profiteered from the Oil for Food scandal. I guess it doesn't matter that America was as bad (worse IMO since it was several large corporations who contributed to the President's election fund) as the next country and that they should also point the finger internally. I just don't see how anyone can justify the connection between this scandal and a need to invade. This is the weakest of all excuses I've heard yet, because there were so many countries willing to take advantage of the situation, including the United States.

So American abuses are worse because no government officials were involved?

And again, not one person in this forum has ever suggested it as a workable rationale for going to war. Do you want to start this all over again? Unbelievable. [/b][/quote]
No Dis, I don't want to go round again. All I want to understand is how you can have a justification for war when companies from your own country are involved, and those companies have contributed to your election campaign coffers. Don't you see the new complexity to this issue that kind of nullifies the argument as a justification for war? How can there be a threat to your country when you're working the guy under the table and its lining your pocket too? See what I mean?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Let me get this straight though Ag, are you now reverting to the popular stance that I originally said that OFF abuses were a legitimate rationale for the administration to use for going to war?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 11 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 11 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So American abuses are worse because no government officials were involved?

And again, not one person in this forum has ever suggested it as a workable rationale for going to war. Do you want to start this all over again? Unbelievable.

No Dis, I don't want to go round again. All I want to understand is how you can have a justification for war when companies from your own country are involved, and those companies have contributed to your election campaign coffers. Don't you see the new complexity to this issue that kind of nullifies the argument as a justification for war? How can there be a threat to your country when you're working the guy under the table and its lining your pocket too? See what I mean? [/b][/quote]
Lanny, I never said it was justification for war. In fact, I said more than once that it wasn't and that if the administration was floating it as such it was pathetic.

I absolutely don't understand how after all of the back and forth on this you still can't see that.

[CaramonLS]

Dis's quote was not a lie it can be found in this thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/index.php?showtopic=3346

in reponse to this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._iraq_weapons_2

(probably should have posted it earlier).