You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Open the books on the food 4 oil program.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.iht.com/articles/93832.html

Read it and weep...for all of the poor Iraqis.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so now the US and its companies control the money and the contracts and meanwhile the ordinary Iraqi on the streets fights for the scraps of the table. Same trough new snouts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    they're hiring people back now and by the end of next week will begin turning over responsibilities to the transitional government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's actually quite a damning article. I wonder how many of our fellow posters have actually read it. Not very complimentary of the UN's oil-for-food programme is it?
    It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more than $1 billion to date - that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion

    Why? Why are they holding this moeny, which should have been used to feed Iraqis?
    Nonetheless, the program facilitated a string of business deals tilted heavily toward Saddam's preferred trading partners, like Russia, France and, to a lesser extent, Syria

    Gosh, can you imagine my surprise at this?[/sarcasm]

    So, three opponents to war benfitted the most from a system which would become obsolete at the end of the war...
    Why, for example, are companies in Russia and Syria - hardly powerhouses in the automotive industry - listed as suppliers of Japanese vehicles?

    As for the program's vast bank accounts, the public is told only that letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas
    Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, ... have been trying for some time to find out how much interest they are going to receive on $4 billion in relief they are still owed. The UN treasurer told me that no outside party, not even the Kurds, gets access to those figures
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Gosh, can you imagine my surprise at this?[/sarcasm]

    So, three opponents to war benfitted the most from a system which would become obsolete at the end of the war...

    Funnily enough those three opponents to war had been against the continuing of UN sanctions against Iraq for quite some time (a position stubbornly resisted by the US and the UK despite the blatant pointlessness of it). The lifting of the sanctions would have ended the oil-for-food-programme and stopped the mega billion trillions of dollars those countries were supposed to be getting, so not everything is as black and white as you think.

    But I agree that there seem to be a lot of money comfortably sitting on UN accounts that could have been put to better use.

    With regard to the chosen partners of the programme, I don't see anything wrong with Russia, France or others being chosen. Did anyone really expect Saddam choosing the US as its main supplier? This seems nothing more than a case of financial jealousy by the Americans.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's because they had their deals in place. Also Aladdin, remember ending the sanctions still would have left Saddam in power to kill more Shi'ites and Kurds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Point is: the sanctions did not have any effect on Saddam's regime. It became clear a long time ago that the sanctions were absolutely useless and only punishing the poor and vulnerable in Iraq. Yet Britain and the US insisted on keeping them running. 500,000 children died as a result and although Saddam carries much of the blame for it the Allies are not without fault on those deaths.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    500,000 children died as a result

    Not as a result. You have to take into consideration all of the crap that went on from lot's of countries. (That's what inspired me to write my nasty little poem.) You had France and Russia selling arms, Germany selling chemicals, warehouses full of food that were never distributed and just found by US troops...the head of the UN not accounting for billions of dollars collected as part of the program. There's enough blame to be spread around...and I'd include the Arab World and Palestinians in particular for supporting a "brother" who was really a "mother".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Funnily enough those three opponents to war had been against the continuing of UN sanctions against Iraq

    Was this because it was standing in the way of their arms deals?
    With regard to the chosen partners of the programme, I don't see anything wrong with Russia, France or others being chosen. Did anyone really expect Saddam choosing the US as its main supplier? This seems nothing more than a case of financial jealousy by the Americans.

    Japanese cars come from Japan, surely?

    I'm not surprised that he chose France and Russia, because both were happy [apparently] to flout UNSC resolutions, just as he was.
    Point is: the sanctions did not have any effect on Saddam's regime.

    I totally agree. They were a diplomatic sop to avoid conflict. I have yet to see sanctions which work against those in power more than they work against the poor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And Annan is dirty. He may also be a bigot for facilitating the torture of Arabs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Was this because it was standing in the way of their arms deals?

    That's right, France and Russia had planned all along to arm Iraq with several hundred nuclear weapons and ICBMs and to form an alliance with Saddam to conquer the world and submit mankind to 1,000 years of oppression and torture.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and submit mankind to 1,000 years of oppression and torture

    Orrrr...they weren't about to let a little thing like the torture of Muslims get in the way of making a buck.:mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    That's right, France and Russia had planned all along to arm Iraq with several hundred nuclear weapons and ICBMs and to form an alliance with Saddam to conquer the world and submit mankind to 1,000 years of oppression and torture.

    :rolleyes:

    Did I mention nucs?

    Tell me, who supplied the majority of Iraqs armaments?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    And Annan is dirty. He may also be a bigot for facilitating the torture of Arabs.

    What are you going on about?

    If Annan is dirty and a bigot for "facilitating the torture of Arabs" (?), what would that make of several US presidents and their governments who:

    a) not only looked the other way for at least a decade while Saddam gassed his own people but actually provided the chemical weapons used

    b) helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile and replaced it with a brutal fascist who killed, tortured and made 'disappear' tens of thousands of his own citizens over an 18-year reign of terror

    c) continue to collaborate with dictatorships and unsavoury regimes from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Pakistan and ignore human right abuses in those countries

    You really have a very warped view of the world if you think Annan is to blame for what has been going on in the Middle East- or elsewhere. I'd suggest you look at several other sources for culprits- one of them being in Washington D.C.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annan

    Focus dude.

    To make me think he's NOT dirty, Annan has to account for the several billion in Iraqi oil money the UN collected and he needs to open the books regarding "UN Administrative costs".

    On the bigot idea. He knew Saddam was torturing Arab Muslims in his country, yet did nothing to stop it. But the UN sure had plenty to say in South Africa...didn't they? And even if the UN made Saddam comply regarding WMD's...the UN still would have kept Saddam in power. That, in my eyes makes the UN disgusting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Did I mention nucs?

    Tell me, who supplied the majority of Iraqs armaments?
    What is being suggested here is that France and Russia are two evil, selfish countries who only wanted sanctions lifted and to avoid a war so they can sell a few second-hand planes and tanks to Saddam Hussein.

    There are some 250 countries in the world. Iraq is one of them. You would think that France, Russia or any other arms-selling countries have a very wide market indeed for their weaponry, and that Iraq might constitute about 2% of the buyers market if that.

    But no, apparently France and Russia's economies depend entirely on weapons sales and Iraq represents 99.999999999% of the sales they make. That's why they have been at odds with the US and have been campaigning against removing the most evil man that ever lived from power, therefore perpetuating the suffering of the poor Iraqis. What disgusting selfishness!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    have been campaigning against removing the most evil man that ever lived from power

    The UN, France, Russia and Germany blocked removing Saddam twice. Even during the first Gulf war, he was not to be removed...just shoved out of Kuwait. Same thing now. He was not to be removed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet

    On the bigot idea. He knew Saddam was torturing Arab Muslims in his country, yet did nothing to stop it.
    And so did several past Presidents and Mr Rumsfield himself, not so long ago shaking hands with the dictator and not giving a toss about human right abuses.

    So... if not this one, do you at least see past US governments as "bigotted" and "disgusting"? Or are you applying your government formula of ignoring all abuses as long as you have a use for the dictator and he does as he's told?

    Stop swallowing all the garbage the Murdoch empire throws at you. The UN is far from perfect, but when it comes to morals, human rights and international responsability, believe me, the US government is a million times worse than the UN.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    o... if not this one, do you at least see past US governments as "bigotted" and "disgusting"?

    Why yes, I do!:D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good. One step at a time. Now we can start working on the current government. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LIFE GIVE MY CREATURE LLLLLLLLLLLLLIFE!:eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Food for Oil

    First step might be to have the UN have absolutely nothing to do with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    What is being suggested here is that France and Russia are two evil, selfish countries who only wanted sanctions lifted and to avoid a war so they can sell a few second-hand planes and tanks to Saddam Hussein.

    No, they had their oil contracts too ;)
    There are some 250 countries in the world. Iraq is one of them. You would think that France, Russia or any other arms-selling countries have a very wide market indeed for their weaponry, and that Iraq might constitute about 2% of the buyers market if that.

    And there are a lot of players in that market, so competition is fierce.

    What we have here is two countries who were anti-wat and yet who also had major arms deals with Saddam, oil contracts with Saddam, breached UNSC resolutions, and if recent reports are to believed were up to their necks in "dirty" deals with Saddam.

    That this regime was one of, if not the, worst in the world seems to have escaped them.

    I have never argued that the opposition was solely based on arms, but on a combination of numerous immoral deals.
    What disgusting selfishness!

    Which is what the US has been accused of and I'm just trying to give some perspective.

    One group of nations wanted to keep their contracts.

    The other group wanted contracts, but as a result freed a nation...
Sign In or Register to comment.