Is it just me, or is the media just not coving this story like we all know they could? This is one of the biggest monetary scandals in history and the big media acts like nothing is going on. You can call Foxnews biased all you want, but if it wasn't for them...none of us would probably even know there was a scandal going on. The Prison scandal got worldwide attention for weeks and on the front page of every news source known. Yet, you have to long and hard to find even a mention of it in the morning paper or in the elite media.

Lets look at what we know:

-Millions of dollars that was supposed to be for food for the Iraqi people actually went into Saddam's pocket.
-Many UN member got kickbacks including Kofi Annan's son
-We now know the TRUE reason France, Russia, and Germany opposed the Iraq war...they were getting sweet oil deals
-Representatives in Congress are calling for Annan's resignation

Question for Debate:
1) Is the media fairly scrutinizing the Oil-for-Food Scandal as it should?

The media reports that which interests the public. If the public aren't interested then the media isn't either.

I think the real problem is that the UN has no watchdog other than itself. The only people who can legally investigate the behaviour of the UN's staff are other UN staff. There probably isn't much will within the UN to start an investigation that may ultimately end up disgracing itself.

Kofi Annan should ensure that a proper investigation is carried out. Maybe he will - but until he does, there isn't enough of a story to report on. Yes, as lederuvdapac writes

there is the potential for a hugely interesting story, however most of the points raised are pure speculation, and the media cannot do much with pure speculation - because it won't interest the public. (And of course, no-one can fire Kofi Annan - he has to choose to resign - and it will probably take a bit more than the some members of the US Congress to persuade him to do that).

Essentially, there is a lot of gossip - and a lot of rumours, but no real information, because only the UN can really carry out a proper investigation. Don't hold your breathe waiting....

Ptarmigan, just to be fair - leder listed 4 points, and you said that "most of them" were pure speculation. Grand jury investigations, congressional statements, official UN documents and reputable news organizations are a little more than speculation.
1 - "millions" went into Saddam's pocket. Actually, the figure was billions. And they not only went to Saddam, they may have gone to pay suicide bombers. source.
2 - many UN members, including Kofi's son, got kickbacks. The Telegraph - UN inspector 'took £60,000 Iraq bribes'
CNN - not me, says Sevan

3 - -We now know the TRUE reason France, Russia, and Germany opposed the Iraq war...they were getting sweet oil deals
The motivation may be speculative, but there is NO DOUBT that they were getting sweet oil deals. (PDF) - complete list of 248 recipients of oil-for-food deals
Sunday Times - - Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil
4 - -Representatives in Congress are calling for Annan's resignation
60 officials call for Kofi to go

Speculation? Rumour? This took me all of 15 minutes on the internet. If Dan Rather's producer can spend 5 years chasing phantom documents regarding president Bush's much-investigated Guard service, certainly one of the big news organizations could spash the front pages with this sensational story? Blood money, murder, terrorism, corrupt politicians, backdrop of a current war - this would make a good thriller, let alone 60 minutes.

Fair enough! I did not mean to disparage lederuvdapac's post at all, but I do believe that the UN is the only organisation that is capable of telling us exactly what happened - and that they won't.

Having said that, please correct me if I am wrong, but these issues are under investigation - has anyone gone to court or been found actually guilty. Until they do, all the media can do is 'speculate' - however likely it may be that these people are guilty of misdeed.




that is taken from carlitoswhey telegraph source - I've highlighted the appropriate word!

I don't disagree at all with lederuvdapac's post (other than the bit about France & Germany ) - but the points are conjecture, which is (IMO) why the media isn't reporting much.

I'm not going to deny that happened, but I have to ask, so what? Whats the difference between the corruption in this case and the corruption that pervades all the interaction between the west and the middle east?

I doubt most people, at least over here, care one jot about the oil for food scandal, because they see the hypocrisy in the accusations. For a good many people, the Bush (and previous) adminstrations support of the House of Saud, as well as the welcoming back into the fold of Ghaddafi only illustrates how easily western business and government interests allow themselves to be bought by rich middle eastern tyrants.

What difference does it make to us if the UN is equally corrupt? At this point the UN is become a superfluous US foreign policy tool anyway so its what we expect. We expect the UN to be corrupt, because experience has taught us that all governments are corrupt, and none more so, nor more hypocritcal, than the US government.


Yes, and many businesses, including US businesses were found to be implicated. Are any actually being held to account?

...its all business as usual. The only difference here is that these corrupt UN officials, as well as the French, German, US and Russian companies involved were acting counter to US foreign policy. Do you really suppose that we'd have heard any of this if it benefitted the USA in the same way that so much corruption has done in (for example) Latin America?


First off. This was never a secret. The French had made no secret of the fact that they had been trying to 'rehabilitate' Saddam Hussein in the same way that Blair and Bush have apparently now 'rehabilitated' Ghaddafi.

Second. There are far more reasons for the French and Germans to oppose the war in Iraq than just to protect some civil servants with their hands caught in the till. American dominance in the middle east does not serve the best interests on the EU, nor the Russian federation.

Third. France and Germany are both social democracies and their governments lie a lot closer to public interest than in Britain or the USA. Neither Chirac or Shroeder can afford to blatently ignore public sentiment in the same way that (for example) Tony Blair can.

Fourth. We could just as easily say that we now understand why the Bush administration was so eager to go to war. It moved to curtail the French/ German/ Russian influence in the middle east and extend its own interests under what ever banner of WMD, WOT or OIF that worked the best.


Which illustrates clearly that the UN is fundamentally a US foreign policy tool.


Question for Debate:
1) Is the media fairly scrutinizing the Oil-for-Food Scandal as it should?

The media doesn't care, because the readers don't care. Saddam Hussein was never of any great interest to most people even when he was in power. Now he is removed, people are even less interested in his antics.

The same can be said for Kofi Annan. Who cares? Annan is a muppet with no power, no authority. He is largely ignored by the Security council and few people consider him to be of consequence.

Its almost a joke to see US conservatives getting their knives out for him considering how fundamentally corrupt the Bush administration is. GW Bush has hundreds of thousands of people killed and yet we're expected to get excited that Kofi Annan's son may have recieved a 'kick back'. Big deal!

If he's guilty, and it can be proven, then by all means let him be tried and convicted, but don't ask us to care whilst the USA is busy using Iraq to wage war against Iran.

I agree with you there, but wouldn't media pressure help things along in this regard?


Nothing has been proven. This would explain the media's complete lack of interest in the Princess Diana murder coverup, Michael Jackson's molesting young boys, George Bush's guard record, etc. I'm a little skeptical. The American media has no desire to investigate the UN, because the American media feel that the UN is "good," and conversely the Bush administration is "bad." We will hear about dozens of prisoners being abused for weeks on end, but BILLIONS of dollars being embezzled must first be proven beyond all doubt.
Care to rephrase this or maybe add some sources?

I do not think enough attention has been given to the UN scandal. However, I feel that the media overlooks more than just the oil for food scandal. I never heard much outcry from the media about the the hundreds of thousands murdered in Rwanda possibly over a million murdered. I do not remember hearing or seeing the investigative reporting into why the UN was derelict in its duty promoting human rights and protection while these people were dying. I do not remember seeing or hearing any investigative reporting as to why the UN turned a blind eye to Miloscevic and his reign of terror in Bosnia. I have not heard or seen any investigative reporting as to why the UN sits on the sideline while there is genocide in the Sudan. And no I have not seen or heard any investigative reporting about the UN oil for food scandal. The UN is quickly becoming one of the biggest frauds on this Earth. They say they stand for human rights but I do not see them in the Sudan. I did not see them in Bosnia and I did not see them in Rwanda. The media in its effort to focus on scandals whether it deals with Bush or Clinton is ignoring one of the biggest scandals of all: The UN being an overhyped debating society

Is the media fairly scrutinizing the Oil-for-Food Scandal as it should?


This is easy to answer by asking another question. Would the global media be all over this like brown on wood if it directly implicated Bush?

I think we all know the answer to that question. To put it bluntly the media slant's it's journalism to adhere to the biased views of it's reporters. We are all biased in our own right and the most of the media happens to be left of center. Hell, by global standards Kerry is right of center.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-oldliberalmedia.htm

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

Yeah so what? Right... only thousands of Iraqi children starved to death. This is like a the kind of scam that is the worst kind...appeal to everyone's sense or desire to at least fill little unhappy children's bellies and then just let those bellies go empty....while your belly sits nice and full on some beachside resort.
The whole reason the Oil for Food scam was presented to the UN was for a solution to the horrible suffering the Iraqi people themselves were experiencing..the UN promised to ease it's severe "after effects" of it's sanctions with this program..so I myself feel it is pretty significant.



Don't really follow your logic..how does this compare to Libya or KSA? Did we somehow lie and deceive the world with our intentions with Ghaddafi? Didn't he fulfill our requests? So why should we not welcome him back? And KSA...really how does this relate to this subject? Was the KSA under sanctions?

I think if this was ohh I dunno say someone like Halliburton it would garner a lot more attention..the US just does that...it excites people..they wanna know..they wanna read..and they wanna delight in all our mistakes, horrors and scandals. The UN is just a bore.

Yet I do feel this story has gained more attention then I believed it would....been a bit surprised by it all actually.

Not true, while Haliburton has been caught dealing to Iran, Iraq, Libya and more, all under sanctions and they have been found guilty on criminal charges and paid fines and they have been found in 1998 and also at present of ripping off the government on accounting practices, all has gone without much major media attention or anyone asking: Why are they still getting contracts?

Its possible the US would media rather not shed too much light on Oil for Food if they would not be forced, or force others to delve inside our own dirty politics, quid pro quo.



According to the documents released by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, since 1998 no fewer than 86 US companies have violated the Trading With The Enemy Act, a US law that bars companies from doing business with declared enemy nations Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea. The companies were fined a combined total of $5.8 million. Nothing really.

As far as the OFF program, it was an attempt to delay an increasing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the sanctions themselves were the political ploy that was starving Iraqis to death. When UN members expressed increasing concerns with the growing Iraq crisis, the US threatened to use veto if any part of sanctions were lifted. When the situation became so grave that the UN called for a lift on the oil ban, the US & UK placed more items on 'hold' within the sanctions comittee. The gov of Iraq increased its exports but could not access the money because of the holds, therefore did not increase its revenues. the money sat in a UN account.
( These are for items relating to telecommunications, water, electricity, sanitation etc.)
So, who got what- when and how is indeed speculation. Attributing that France and Germany backed out of the war for these 'sweet deals' is pretty absurd (and oh so Fox conspiracy). If they had gone with us they would have recived a portion of the spoils, certainely much higher than a few clandestine barrels of which only a kickback was creamed off.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uFmL-s4...ns,+past+&hl=en

This is no "conspiracy"...it actually happened. So you are saying that France and Germany were just trying to help the Iraqi people...by illegally pouring millions into Saddams back pocket. Yea, that makes sense.

Not true? How so... what do you find false in my comments? That people the world over show much interest in the US and it's politics, it's scandals, more than any other nation or collection of nations? Or that the corporations involved in the UN Oil for Food scam are somehow treated, reported on and publicly linked to controversy as much as Halliburton?
Sorry got to stick to my comments on this..and you said nothing to convince me otherwise..in fact you just further illustrated my point. You can not only off hand name all the countries Halliburton is linked with you can also name a few of her criminal charges, the dates in which these occurred and I am sure a few of her more notable employees. No great feat either...no astonishing show of knowledge..because any one in the world who follows the news and is aware of current events can do the same.
Can you...without the use of google..do the same for the corporations involved in the UN oil for food scam? Can you name one of the companies? Do you have their historical list of controversies and indictments mesmerized? Doubtful.
Were you even aware that this is said to be the biggest financial scandal in world history? And yet all you have to contribute on this thread is more on Halliburton...just the usual sensational stuff. There are many Halliburton's the world over..and the UN allowed these type of companies to essentially dictate how it would implement it's largest ever sanction program ...why is this not significant?

The UN...the pillar of international law...and here we have the UN involved in probably one of the largest illegal scams in the world and still we can't get anyone to focus on it..or to even discuss what this all means for the world..how will this impact the UN's standing?..oh who cares...we still have Halliburton to gorge ourselves on.

Again I will say this...to me this story is very significant..and I think it deserves our attention and I think it should be discussed and debated without the need to drag Halliburton in..or the KSA or Libya. Sorry but I find this story in upon itself of great significance..and I am saddened that others do not.


I am no supporter of sanctions..so your list of US companies wheeling and dealing with the enemy honestly does not bother me or make me rethink my stance on this issue.




So if the Oil for food scam was introduced as a means to alleviate the human suffering in Iraq..and yet was being used instead as a vehicle to extort billions..how does it have no role in the human cost of these sanctions? I find this argument terribly confusing.

I also find the argument that somehow the Iraqi sanctions game was only played by the US and the UK ..disingenuous. See I recall a UN vote occurring (the whole smart sanctions thing) where the US and the UK asked for the sanctions to be loosened..to allow more items and flexibility..and other UNSC members vetoed it or threatened to..until they got their own needs taken care of first. If you believe it was solely the US and the UK that played the veto game with Iraqis lives then I am gonna have to now tell you.... no your wrong.
Oh and that UN bank account just happened to be in France. Oh yes and let us not forget the 35% reparation payments that Iraq was made to pay to Middle Eastern nations from their Oil for Food "profits". Then you take into account the money being stolen..then all the bloated diplomatic bureaucracy that was created for this program..what was the labor costs for the UN to implement this? Prior to the knowledge that the Oil for food scam was in fact a scam it was often referred to as "Oil for UN jobs"
How much did the Iraqi people actually receive from the sale of their own nation's resources?
And it is not speculation..it is pretty well documented that all of these countries had exclusive contracts with Iraq..it was all there for all to see as it was all part of the UN sanction program. I honestly have no idea how you question that. As for the extortion bit..well that was just a bonus. I have read that some banks in the ME..this was a world wide effort you know..claim that the costs of these contracts were inflated..as in just a normal everyday thing..cost of doing business... by at the least 10%. And I never read Fox news..I usually stick to the BBC.

What Im saying is 'not true' is that people like to pick on poor ole Haliburton while ignoring the UN. The vilified lefty press is who dug up all the stuff on Haliburton, not major media. Haliburton is a proven criminal and the OFF program is still under investigation.
If we are not interested in corrupton of US corporations dealing with Saddam, why are we supposed to get so upset that foreign corporations dealt with him? Dont you think there is some correlation there?
Bucket, if you dont care about Haliburton dealing with the enemy then why do you care when its France or Russia?

The corporations that sold products or had contracts for oil were supposed to do just that, listing them doesnt make them guilty of anything. Of course people wheeled and dealed with vouchers and pocketed oil money!

None of you here has provided much in links but a whole bunch of preliminary accusations, and I was not saying that it wasnt news worthy, but what exactly what is supposed to be done about it until theres someone to blame?

The sanctions on Iraq were a dirty scam from start to end, I am not suprised by any of it. Bloated contracts? Truly shocking. Considering that I believe we are not in Iraq for anything but oil and strategic location and meanwhile killing off Iraqis we half starved for 13 years, I just cant get too worked up about this.
I hated the sanctions on Iraq from the beginning.

Concentrating on this is really a veiled attempt to prove the UN invalid and another reason to place some blame on France and say the US was right about them all along , isnt it?

I'm not Bucket, but to me there is a vast difference between the involvement of a private industry, which is then tried and held accountable (even if I personally feel the fine was not large enough), than government officials directly involved in the process, taking bribes in lieu of humanitarian aid payment while people starved.



Here’s a question for you. If this is nothing but a “veiled attempt” to prove the UN invalid and blame the French, why did France and Russia oppose the move to lift sanctions and the oil for food program after the fall of Saddam when the United States, UK, and Spain jointly put forward a draft to the UNSC calling for them to do so? Just sincere concern for WMD and United Nations role in shaping the future of Iraq (their stated reason)? Or was it because Oil for food had become a cash cow for the U.N. and a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French companies? Heard anything of the trials of those companies for impropriety?

Until 2001, all Iraqi oil revenues were held in an escrow account run solely by Banque Nationale de Paris. Afterwards, the money was kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime, with no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts.

This stinks. The UN has discredited itself, and I'm not surprised that accusing fingers from the guilty are pointing in other directions now. They've certainly had ample time to prepare their excuses and diffusion of responsibility, and I expect more to come. Yes, there is a double standard with the media. I've heard more about the extra 5 minutes Bush spent reading 'My Pet Goat' than I've heard about this.

You know, it could just be me, but I've never seen or known anyone to grab a paper off the rack because of the headline "Oil for food scandal at UN!" I don't buy media conspiracies, whether they originate from the left or the write. By and large the media conglomorates which run the show are amoral and apolitical, and more concerned with selling their product than presenting a specific view of reality. So no there won't be any sensationalist headline.

That all being said, I don't know what the fuss is about regarding this particular scandal. Whenever news breaks about a development in this story, I usually end up reading about it the same or the next day. It may not make the front page, but the U.N. never makes the front page; nor do any international news stories unless the U.S. is directly involved or there is a body-count. If anyone who seems to think there is something hinky going on could DEMONSTRATE that the media is disregarding this story, then by all means do so. Simply saying:



Does not make it true, or right. Nice jab at the elite by the way... that's just as good as a factual argument. I see an article on the resignation of a key Annan aide in the NY Sun right now. There was an editorial in the Washington Times just yesterday. Here's an update from Springfield Missouri that is also dated just yesterday. While we're on yesterday, here's yet another story from the Washington post on the scandal. Two days ago there is this story from the New York Post. On the same day the Washington post again ran a story on the subject. The Financial Times, which is of course a great bastion of elite liberal news media (did you get the sarcasm there?), also ran a similar story. (Registration required.) In fact, the story on the coming UN Audit appears to have been picked up by just about every daily in America, or at least those that are registered with Google news.

You know, perhaps I'm crazy, but maybe Lederuvdapac, you just don't know how to read a newspaper. I don't mean to sound condascending, but how can you suggest that the media isn't running a story, when a simple look reveals that there are numerous articles on the same subject every day?



Umm, if these countries were in bed with Saddam under this program (and I personally think that they were), then how does this make any sense? These countries can't profit because their partners in Iraq are no longer available.

First, the question for debate deals with whether or not the media is scrutinizing the scandal enough. I believe that they are not doing it enough...you believe they are doing fine. Ok, that is your opinion but thats why we have something called DEBATE. You linking us to 4 or 5 news articles on the scandal does NOT help your argument. Are you going to tell me that the media has pushed this as much as 1/10 of lets say the Abu Gahrib Prison Scandal? The New York Times ran i believe 48+ front page news stories on it. I think that you can count the number of times they headlined the OFF scandal on one or two hands in the long amount of time we knew of it. THAT is the scrutiny i have been talking about.

You can insult my ability to read a newspaper all you want, but it doesnt take away from the fact that something big went down and not much is being done about it. If this situation was in reverse and someone in the Bush administration was implicated...the media would be all over it. But thats not the case and it showcases the hypocrisy.

By my understanding, the companies stood to lose substantial business when the food for oil program ended, because those contracts were already in place, regardless of Saddam. Additionally, there was 13-15 billion held in escrow accounts which they did not wish to turn over to the new Iraq government... I'm definitely no economics genius, but I'm thinking 13+ billion is a lot of interest every month.

At the very least, food for oil was a fiasco beyond inefficient and wasteful, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starved in the process of sanctioning Iraq's government. Attempts to maintain it after the fall of Saddam should raise an honest eyebrow as to who was likely profitting underhandedly.

This is simply not true. Before he left the air with a bad back, Joe Scarborough harped on his MSNBC show about this for weeks. Pat Buchanan, who is filling in for him, brings it up on a regular basis.

Tim Russert asked Kofi Annan himself some questions about the matter a few weeks ago on Meet the Press.

While it may or may not have been covered adequately in newspapers, one would almost have to be living under a rock not to know about it.


Edited to add:

In fact, Meet the Press aired this subject on May 2, 2004 nearly eight months ago.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4880116/

If you want to see Kofi Annan’s responses you’ll have to read the transcript. I don’t want to snip it up into edited bits.

I dont know, you tell me? Why did they, do you have a link explaining such? Do you know why the US and UK continually refused to lighten sanctions when millions of Iraqis were starving to death? I think neither of us know, beyond the obvious, self interest.
Anyway, I was talking about the posters here, not the validity of the scandal.
You know, noone likes a scandal more than myself, being a liberal, we always look for a chance at hating the powers that be.

I dont see an ( ! )at the escrow being held at a Parisian bank, any more than I see a problem with UN headquarters being in NYC. Should the escrow have been held in a NY bank? Why? Then we would have to answer to inquiry

I am not defending what happened in any way, I just think its a bit early to go on a rampage about it when we know so little, and nooone here can provide something substantial or concurrant. It appears to be shadow boxing. Allegations all over the place but nothing solid.

Now you know, Bush backed Kofi Annan, said he was an upstanding leader and all that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6631989/

Oh my oh my, Saddam got money, Bush sidesteps issue, and State Dept spokesman says, its not important.

What does that tell you? That they are not all in it together or that is was just France and Kofi and friends, taking advantage of the victimized US of A against our attempt to be the righteous and to secure Iraqi freedom? Puleeze, lets get real here. Everything we have done in Iraq was to break that country and get ahold of its oil. Lets stop playing like we are kittens in a world full of lions, its disgusting to act so idiotically naive and blatantly dishonest amongst ourselves.

First, you say there is nothing substantial here, and then because Bush didn't directly call for Kofi's resignation, they must be in it together? I don't know what to say... though I think I know what your opinion would be if Bush HAD called directly for Kofi's resignation. That would be a diplomacy breech beyond the "axis of evil" speech. I disagree with you, fundamentally, on the US position here. I'm at a loss to understand why we cannot discuss UN impropriety without a gratuitous American bash fest, and slam on anyone who disagrees with Euro-apologetics.

Baloney Mrs P, you know what, Id certainly like to discuss the issue, if anyone actually would, but this thread is a whole lot of nothing about nothing. Dont use it to take a jibe at me for appreciating Europe either, Im sorry you did not get as much out of it as I did, I guess military bases dont afford much cultural education.

I never said there was nothing substantial here, and twice youve twisted my words. Thats because this thread is empty of meaning. If people want to start a thread to bash the UN and France, right on, but dont disguise it into an act of nothingness and Fox news blather.

If you want to discuss UN impropriety, someone please do , but you have not and neither has anyone else. The content has been weak, and every attempt by me to solicite links and more info is met by confrontation to my contention that there is not enough information to make a judgement yet.

Discuss, someone please discuss something, because this thread is a waste of space so far and a futile attempt at americentrisizm.

I have never lived in a military base overseas, Artemise. That's approximately 3 1/2 years of Euro and Asian living I've seen. You know that half of my family is Italian. My dad's parents are from Switzerland. I have simply come to different conclusions from my experiences than you. I don't think I'm a Euro basher. I actually love most aspects of Europe. I'm also not an American basher. I see what I see, but when I make a criticism of the former, I am deemed "idiotically naive and blatantly dishonest" by you (in the post I previously responded).

What, exactly, are you looking for? The question to be debated is, "Is the media fairly scrutinizing the Oil-for-Food Scandal as it should?". I don't think so. Either way, you've already indicated that the matter is basically irrelevant to you, regardless of whatever condemning information comes out. Maybe many feel as you do, which would explain why the media doesn't spend much time on this issue.

carlitoswhey

Nope. You know what I'm talking about. Its common knowledge. You're free to disagree with me if you wish to, but I put my faith in the Lancet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bucket

I'm presuming your post was addressed to me?

Are you refering to me? Well, I hate to be so pedantic, but I'm afraid no one asked me about the oil for food idea so I don't accept any responsibility for it.

As for fat bellies, I don't think its a coincidence that the average weight of an American is far greater than any other nation, so if your going to claim that a fat belly is an indication of corruption, then you've got some explaining to do.


Significant? How so? Whats the difference between the corruption in this case and the corruption that pervades all the interaction between the west and the middle east?

Why should this matter be so significant? Why should this new batch of dead children be any more significant than the children blown to pieces by coalition bombs and bullets?


Have you even considered what you're saying? By that argument, all Saddam Hussein had to do was say sorry and fulfill your requests. Long Live Imperialism!

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see how a man who has supported and funded terrorists can suddenly be let of the hook simply because he said 'sorry'. I wonder... does Libya have any valuable natural resources?


I'm not. This is exactly the sort of smoke screen the conservative war machine requires to function.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Artemise

Because they ARE the Industrial military complex.


Because its much easier?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Mrs Pigpen

Perhaps its because, all of this, everything that has happened has happened because the United States of America is responsible for what has taken place. Not just during the war in Iraq, but prior to it. That the USA, as it once did in Vietnam, created an enemy, a threat, and is now engaged in destroying that threat. That at the heart of all global politics, the almighty dollar economy and the powers that maintain it (the Industrial Military complex that Eisenhower warned us about) have driven the cold war ever onwards buying and selling weapons, destroying cultures, bombing other nations, waging war for profit and using the fear of poverty and responsibility to guarantee support from a US population that would rather feel good than be good.

How did this debate shift to Haliburton? The debate topic is the corruption of the United Nations...a supposed respected center for diplomacy and a model of international relations for the entire world...not a military industrial complex which *gasp* wants to make money.

Comparing Haliburton and the United Nations is like comparing apples to cauliflower. Ridiculous!



Its the United Nations! How can we put our faith into this organization if the corruption is just so rampant. Its not even the corruption actually...its the treachery and betrayal to our enemies.

And to your second point...fine go ahead and call our troops murderers. ("I am not calling our troops murderers, its the US govenrment") Yea right! If you cannot see as of now what we are trying to do in Iraq than what can i say? We are giving Iraq democracy, just like we did in Afghanistan, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, the Philipines, and various other nations around this globe in our history.





Hmm, imperialism? Everything that the United States has ever taken, we have given back. The Pacific islands, the phillipines, panama, cuba, france, germany, japan, afghanistan, iraq, wow...look at that the list goes on. Fact is that calling the US imperialist just shows a complete lack of knowledge of historical reference and context.



Problem in the world?...Blame the United States...because it is just easier.

What profit? Where is this almighty profit that you speak of? I dont see it...show me it so i can commend you for the profit we are currently making other than a new friend and ally in the Middle East. You know, i didnt hear you give hand to the United States for the success in Afghanistan. That it is now a free and democratic state. I wonder why.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/25/...main/index.html



But wait! Al Queda members found in Iraq? How could this be? I thought we were fighting just iraqis who do not want democracy. I guess we are fighting the same people who knocked down the twin towers on 9/11. Maybe we ARE fighting the war on terror in iraq as well as the fight for democracy[/sarcasm]

1) Is the media fairly scrutinizing the Oil-for-Food Scandal as it should?

Actually Leder the topic is as above. Considering that the strory has been around since the spring, I don't see the point in harping on it, (as has Joe Scarborough, for example) unless there are new developments.

Edited for grammar.

I know what the topic is BoF, being that i am the author of it. The Oil-for-food scandal IS (=) corruption at the United Nations. Maybe your friend Scarborough hasn't kept everyone informed as you are led t believe.

The debate is just that...a debate. Debate the question and can we please stop all the semantics?

lederuvdapac

Its really quite simple. Its the principle of hypocrisy. Before you point the finger at other people, you should deal with your own problems first... or as the Bible says, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. If the US conservative/patriot wing of the Industrial Military complex wishes to level allegations of corruption against other people and organisations without the courtesy of awaiting trial results, then they can't complain if people return the compliment.

The bottom line is, the USA and its internal political organisations and military Intelligence systems has been creating wars, manufacturing enemies and stirring up the nations of the planet for generations.

What we're seeing at the UN is like seeing a fly on the hide of the collossal bulk of nepotism and corruption that the USA has become.


What faith? What faith has the American right wing ever showed the UN?

The UN has long been a broken political instrument of the USA, used almost exclusively by its member states for own gain, and the almighty USA leads the way!


Murder? How quaint!
What an old fashioned concept for the mechanised slaughter of thousands. The death and destruction of entire cultures and nations. What is murder when US airmen can obliterate people from above, innocent civilians, or even their own allies, and not be brought to justice. I wonder, when a Vietnamese child has her body cut in half by a US land mine, whom can her family call upon for justice? Is it murder? Or just another dead non American?

Only this morning I watched a Mpeg from Iraq where US airmen in combat helicopters whooped and cheered as they gunned down fleeing figures, only to break down in tears as seconds later they were told they'd fired on their own troops. How cheap is life when one cheers the death of the people you claim to be 'liberating'? What meaning does 'murder' have when no one is ever brought to account?

As for Afghanistan, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the Philipines...

Russia?

Also, you forgot Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, Beirut and Korea. Why don't you list them?


Yup. The advocacy of extending the power and dominion. That sounds about right.


Given back?, We're like dogs on a leash. Tied for ever to the dictatorial demands of the US president and the Industrial Military machine you call a government. What choice have we ever had? Do you know what happens to nations who say no to the USA? They are attacked, verbally, politically and economically.

Why do you think the Europeans are banding together? Its because we have to if we ever want to be free of the USA.


America is the richest nation on the planet. It has the largest economy. It is the foremost producer of weapons in the world, the greatest seller of weapons and one of the most polluting nations on the planets.

By comparison, what is the UN? Powerless, flawed, corrupt... It has no means to produce weapons nor industrial capacity to pollute the planet. Its opportunities for corruption ride in the wake of US policy.

Being required to care about UN corruption when we've been forced to watch decades of US corruption is ridiculous. Thats where the apples and cauliflowers come into this. Especially given the fact that the USA was involved in maintaining the very sanctions that killed the innocent Iraqi's in question.


Well I'll tell you why. Its because Afghanistan has had ONE election, and yeah that’s good... but one election does not make a democratic state. There are plenty of nations in the world that held one, two or even three democratic elections before descending into poverty, anarchy, war and tyranny because they're interests clashed with US foreign policy. Remember the other 11 Sept?

As it is, Afghanistan, swollen with its new found democracy, has chosen to utilise its new found freedom by continuing its former mass production of poppy plants. What a success story!


Of course you are fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Every one who violently opposes the USA is a terrorist. There is no such thing as a freedom fighter any more... not unless they're on your side.

Ahh, here we have the real feelings of the dissenters. The world revolves around the US. Moif, this topic is not about the US, can you make a single post in the thread that is about the UN and stop posting about the US?

This is about the UN oil for food scandal. If you want to post about the US you should bring up the US companies that were involved.

This is amusing, the UN get's caught in one of the largest scams in the history of the planet and all you can do is talk about how corrupt the US is.

If you were all about "anti-corruption" you would bashing the UN on this subject with a big stick. The only hypocrasy I see is coming from YOU.

Vampiel

Why?
The two are interwoven in this matter. They cannot simply be divorced in order to make cheap attacks against the UN.


A_ Who said I was 'anti corruption'?

B_ I'm not saying the UN is innocent! Where did I say that? All I've asked is 'so what?' I don't doubt the UN has failed and allowed corruption to take place, but my point is 'so what?'. At this point in proceedings, what of it? Why should I care about one case of UN corruption when I'm faced with decades of US corruption?

C_Largest scam? By what definition? The size of the money involved? How much did the Vietnam war cost? And how much money did the US make from it? How much is Iraq costing and Afghanistan? How much money has it cost to eradicate the enemies created by the USA? How much cash changed hands in weapons deals in 2004? How many children were killed by unexploded ordanance in Vietnam?


I'm not saying the UN is innocent.

I'm saying you American conservatives don't have the right to be pointing the finger!

moif then make a topic about the supposed corruption in the history of the united states. Then i will be able to compare that with every GOOD thing the United States has ever done...something i have a feeling you will neglect.

Also, dont make such ridiculous claims unless you have facts to back them up.

Actually they can on one key point (explained below).



You did. It's apparent by your bashing the US for corruption that you are not in favor of it.



Of course you are not stating that the UN is innocent because that would be an obvious lie, so you have to beat around the bush and make it seem like no big deal.

So what? I guess you don't care that a few top French officials in the CURRENT FRENCH GOVERNMENT were implicated that have close ties to Chirac. Who cares.... a few top officials closely tied to Chirac were implicated to be involved to taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, so what. Not to mention Annan's son, notice Annan distanced himself from his son recently by stating "I don't get involved in his business".



That's a pretty damning statement. Do you think this would be getting 24/7 news coverage if I replaced Chirac's name with Bush? Would you say "so what" or "care one jot about the oil for food scandal" then?



The US didn't make any money from the Vietnam war, or the war in Afghanistan. Wars are expensive, they don't make any money for the government, they lose alot of it.



Right, you are only marginilizing the scandal. If you haven't noticed im not a conservitave and there's also other liberals that ARE pointing the finger because they are not hypocrits.



Acting to counter US foriegn policy? What? By taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and pocketing it?

This is called absolving the scandal by rationalizing it as something with good intentions. They were TAKING BRIBES from a brutal dictator and pocketing the money and in return to voice their dissent to US policy. Couldn't they have done that without making illegal transactions with Saddam Hussein?

This thread is hard for me to follow... if I skip anything/one..sorry.



Really confused with this argument and the many others here like it...exactly how does citing the UN..the United Nations..excuse the US? I thought when we say the UN..it makes it fairly all inclusive.
Then more confusion..because I hadn't thought "dealing" with Saddam was what these companies, individuals and UN personnel were being accused of. I understand how the UN sanctions on Iraq worked...I understand that it was perfectly legal to do business with Saddam as long as you did it through the UN..yet again this is not what the accusations are..they are of bribery, corruption and extortion of billions of dollars. There happens to be a few US corporations under investigation..but only a few as Saddam under the OFF scam was allowed to pick himself the companies he would sell his oil to or sign contracts with and America not being one of his favorites..was forced to use middle men.
Please Artemise I honestly don't appreciate you attempting to place my argument as some kind of biased view of certain nations...try and argue me or debate me on the topic at hand...instead of what you falsely perceive to be my prejudices.



How can we !? It's all soo hush hush top secret...obviously Mr Annan has much to hide. I mean it is our world ...right? At least that is what the UN claims isn't it? Except it is none of our business to know what they have been doing with our world. When will we know? They say by 2005. This is another thing I take issue with the UN on this whole subject..the absolute secrecy and confidential treatment of this investigation. It is the UN..our world..the investigation should be transparent..

Instead Mr. Annan keeps it covered..why won't Annan open the files...what does he have to hide?

But who cares it is just business as normal..yes you are all right..the UN changed nothing. Colonialism never died..they just call it international law..make it all legal sounding..oooohh it's the law.
Now we have laws that say we can take control of country, sell your national resources, starve you all to death and then give you only a small fraction of your nation's wealth....it's the new colonialism....international law.


Is this meant to engage me somehow or to insult me? I think the latter. Again I must be some horrid biased jerk who doesn't like French people...I couldn't possibly just have a sense of right and wrong. No nononono we all know you must have your set and defined political beliefs..you must remain faithful. Sorry never have been much of a fan for Dogma.

And again I am left confused and wondering when the US became independent of the UN and when the French were placed in charge?

Moif..perhaps it is a language barrier..my comments on fat bellies was more along the lines of an illustrative point..not something to be taken literally...tho I am not surprised you took it where you did.
See children starved in Iraq while many people got very rich off the exclusive contracts. Money was being extorted out of the oil for food program..when you know it was supposed to buy food..not bribes...not bombs...not marble palaces..not to inflate contracts..but food for babies.
But if you think all the fat cats live in the US then maybe I am wrong..perhaps it is more then just a simple cultural/language misunderstanding.



You make no sense. My requests? Have you been paying attention for the past 14 yrs? This all began as a UN war..then it was UN sanctions ..not me..I have no imperial powers of my own. And I don't think we all... as in the UN..only asked for an apology..there is plenty info out there I am sure you can find something to read..the UN had a few other requests.
Qaddafi fulfilled his...he ceased his nuclear pursuits..he allowed inspections and he fully cooperated with the UN inspection process...oh yeah and he paid out some cash to the victims....what more do you want? We bombed the guy...doesn't that please you? What is it supposed to be eternal damnation? I thought Jesus cleared that all up..we are supposed to forgive. We did it for South Africa...where was all the moaning and accusations of ulterior motives then?


And who are the conservatives...where are the war machines? The UN is pushing for reform..they not only want the guns, the bodies in uniform..the machine as you put it..they wanna use it too.
Broaden your reading a bit more.




Is it the UN itself that extorted the money...took the bribes..paid Saddam his billions? Is the UN somehow an entity of it's own? No it is a collection of nations and people from those nations. It is the vehicle, the disguise, the scam in which the extortion, the bribery and the smuggling took place within. And contrary to your belief it was just the usual west vs the ME ....ohh I dunno perhaps hopeful crusade nostalgia..countries in the ME itself were integral partners in this scam...I have read that most corps involved were NOT western.
Corruption of this sort is wrong regardless who does it..only seems a normal thing in my mind to oppose it in all cases. If you enjoy vilifying Halliburton because of it's war profiteering then why not any company involved in the OFF scam?

And you know what..it isn't just this one incident..there are other accusations of UN corruption in other nations..the UN rapes of the young girls in DRC got absolutely NO MEDIA ... and those guys are going completely unpunished! But who cares..I mean it is just rape..girls have been raped for centuries..and they get raped here in the US so we have no right to complain.

People are not looking or hoping for the UN to fail, disgrace itself...doesn't mean it hasn't.

Vampiel

Bashing is it? I suppose its always easier to demonise your opponent and trivilise their points by dismissing them as ridiculous or 'bashing' rather than face the fact that the messenger is not responsible for the message.


Ahh... but it IS a big deal. I just don't care about it. I'm sure plenty of other people will care about it, and a lot of people will face criminal investigations, but for my part... its just one more bite in the giant dren sandwich that is Iraq.


Probably not. I don't respect the French government but I don't feel threatened by them either.


And its just a coincidence that the USA is the worlds largest weapons manufacturer and arms seller?

Here's the crux (for me). I can't get all worked up about petty corruption on an individual scale when I know that corruption on an international, intercontinental scale has been taking place for generations. When I look back on the Vietnam war and see the parallels between that conflict and what we're facing now, then the sheer scale of the corruption bleeds out all other considerations. Jaques Chirac's friends accepting bribes and being discovered means nothing when compared to the decades of faked wars and constructed enemies that the United States has used to manipulate geopolitics to its own ends.

The USA made Saddam Hussein. They nurtured his dictatorship and used him to fight against the Iranians and now, once again, just like the Nazi's, the Soviets, the Viet Minh and the Mujahideen, the USA is fighting an enemy, it largely created, or helped to create during its rise to global dominance. When faced with the sheer audacity and cruelty of US foreign policy, I can't find any surplus of outrage to expend on the UN. Its all been bled from me in my contemplation of the 'American century'.


Perhaps in America, your not a conservative. But by the political measure employed over here, you are. Suffice to say, you are one of those that defends US foreign policy, regardless.


I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that these people had good intentions. If anything they were playing the same dirty game that the USA has been playing. There is no difference at a state level. ALL nations are corrupt.

The only difference is the magnitude of corruption involved.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Bucket

I thought you were making a parrallel between me and my 'fat belly' and the kids starving in Iraq. Obviously I was wrong, so I apologise.


I'm not talking about you. You said 'Didn't he fulfill our requests?', so I just responded to that.



I agree with all of this.

But I don't agree with this.

Yeah, it's just you, lederuvdapac. All this righteous indignation coming from the right-wing media would be funny if it weren't coming from the same simple minds that proclaimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he didn't), Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda in pulling off 9/11 (he wasn't) and that liberating Iraq from Saddam would make the world a safer place (it hasn't).

"The focus has got to be on removing this criminal regime. Until the regime is gone it's going to be very hard to do anything. Even in cities that are liberated. I think when the people of Basra no longer feel the threat of that regime, you are going to see an explosion of joy and relief." --- Paul Wolfowitz (3/24/03)

That hasn't happened either and nobody's dumb enough in the Bush Administration to suggest it will. But despite what Fox News, Charles Krauthammer and right-wing radio say, there's another side of the story here.

Rarely mentioned, either at the hearings or in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the UN agencies and those that result from decisions of particular member states within the highly poli